Re: Windows Me and Oracle -- unbelievable!

> want to have professional stuff running, use Win2K. I suspect ME will
 migrate
> to XBox; do you think you'd have Oracle on XBox?

Isn't that going to be WinCE?

>(And if MS puts SQL Server
> on XBox, then we all know what MS thinks of SQL Server, don't we?)

That is not fair. Oracle has a lite version, and I think even a version for Palm Pilot (I may be wrong on this). Does that say anything about how stable and big Oracle can be?

> MS has been struggling with getting real money out of businesses while
 keeping
> home PC junkies happy with low prices. Hence the divergent OSs, Win2K and
 ME.
> They need Win2K workstation to be significantly different (possibly runs
 some
> things that ME wont) or companies wont pay the higher price - the security
 and
> other niceties can be covered by add ons (Norton/Symantec/whatever).

Please tell me what the add-ons are! Win2K is much, much more stable that the DOS-based OSes (Win 9x, WinME), and if we had an option, we would go for the lower-priced, but I disagree with you on two sides: 1) Win9x and WinME are extremely unstable and allow for too much modification by end users, and 2) Win2K is the best bang for the buck, giving you the stability you need while shielding the OS from the users and not needing any third party utils for making it more stable (how can Norton make Win9X more stable? I do not see it). Received on Sat May 05 2001 - 11:02:45 CDT