Re: Windows Me and Oracle -- unbelievable!

On 05 May 2001 16:02:45 GMT, "wayne" <no_at_email.please.com> wrote:

>>(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?

Agreed. Actually, we all would know what MS thinks of Access, in such an event! Darn thing has always been promoted as MS's "lite" database product. To go back on that now would seriously upset thousands of "database developers" who invested serious time and $$$ in Access...

>
>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).

I think the problem is that to get W2K to work with all security/safety enabled requires a company to totally commit to MS "security architecture". Whereas with the 9x series, what most companies do is tack-on the security they want or need for their existing environment.

IOW, W2K-only means total sell-out to how MS thinks security should be handled. Of course, you can tack-on your own security stuff just like 9x. But then, why the heck pay the extra???

It was exactly the same with NT4W. Many "corporates" out there looked at it, realized that to get it to work safely and secure would require them to convert totally to MS-style security. If they wanted to make it work safely in their pre-existing networks, it meant add-ons. Bugger, why pay extra for NT4W? Better stay with 9x. Simple.

The above goes for both security and integration with non-MS driven environments.

On the other hand, let's not forget that when NT4W and 95 came out, MS was far from having the monopoly they have now. Ie, there were many more non-MS-only sites out there. That is not the case now. So W2K may have a good future in replacing the 9x and me sites.

Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_bigpond.net.au.nospam
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html Received on Sat May 05 2001 - 20:27:17 CDT