Re: Oracle versus MS Sql Server

Hi Dino,

important things first: happy birthday and don't work too hard today!

Of course you can call it the "configuration". Maybe I have a slightly different view, as I would like to avoid a configuration completely. I want the installation program to ask me as many questions as necessary, and after it has finished, the software has to run.

Maybe all of you will now shout at me, but I dare to say it anyway:

I want to have a working Oracle database just by hitting the SETUP.exe. I do not want to learn any details about INIT.ora or SQLNET.ora. I do not even want to know, that they actually exist. And I do not want to become an Oracle DBA. My level of approaching the Oracle database is in terms of SQL and OLE/DB. I prefered if I had an Oracle DBA doing all this installation and configuration business. But this simply wouldn't be reasonable.

If I develop an application, and deliver this application to my customer, he will have the DBAs to manage that database. I hand over the SQL, tell them about the expected table sizes and anything they want to know, and they will do the rest. I would never install an Oracle database on a production system, just on my own local network.

No, adding more RAM is no choice. The server already has enough memory (1GB). That Enterprise Manager is simply not very responsive.

Michael G. Schneider

"Dino Hsu" <dino1.nospam_at_ms1.hinet.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:86g0ttod4bh9lpj7p18glhnbimjr67f8b5_at_4ax.com...
> Dear Michael,
>
> As a regular poster of this news group and because it's my birthday, I
> feel obliged to make you feel at home, as I can. Sybrand might be
> serious about things, but he is a nice and generous person, he saves
> no efforts in helping others.
>
> I am a Windows programmer too (for very long), I have been through the
> same hard time as you are now. The more I study about Oracle, the more
> I realize its benefits, but only after a lot of efforts.
>
> As far as Oracle installation on Windows is concerned, I think it is
> not the installation that is difficult, it is the configuration that
> is trouble-prone (for novice, of course) and needs to be carfully
> addressed. This is like flying a complicated vehicle such as an
> airplane, you need some basic training to get it work, (more
> experience to achieve its full potential) or you will easily crash it.
> There are heaps of interesting features in a professional database
> like Oracle. Before you start to use any unfamiliar features, please
> consult people/document and get some basic idea first. Take into
> consideration the restoration time that might incur when you make
> mistakes and unfortunately you are fighting with dead-lines.
>
> I do agree with Microsoft's all-time strength in user-friendliness (at
> the expense of stability and functionality?). As I use Microsoft
> Windows and Office products extensively, I do know about their
> benefits and limitations. If you understand the difference between
> Microsoft and Oracle, it is not difficult to make appropriate
> decisions in doing your projects.
>
> If you do feel the java-based Universal Installer is slow, think about
> adding more RAM! The hardware becomes very cheap these days. Oracle
> will probably keep using this java GUI, because it provides the same
> look-and-feel across all Oracle platforms, although different from
> Microsoft's.
>
> To conquer the technical barriers of Oracle RDBMS, try the following
> ways:
> 1.Oracle on-line documents (if not on your disk, you can also find
> them on technet.oracle.com)
> 2.Oracle metalink (metalink.oracle.com, for customers only, more
> practical advices can be found there)
> 3.Oracle technical support (pretty good, relatively speaking)
> 4.this news group (many Oracle experts)
> 5.hands-one testing is always necessary
>
> HTH,
> Dino
>
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 07:48:07 +0200, "Michael G. Schneider"
> <mgs_at_mgs-software.de> wrote:
>
> >"Sybrand Bakker" <postbus_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >news:tsuhkmo24ej05c_at_corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> OK,
> >> If you don't like Oracle, why not stick to sqlserver, and continue to
use
> >> non-scalable software.
> >> Many people can install Oracle without problems. That you can't doesn't
> >> prove Oracle is a bad product.
> >> How many programs,do you think, there are, that run on Windows, and do
NOT
> >> strictly follow the Windows 'standards'?
> >> Did you ever seriously tried to inform yourself how Microsoft came to
> >power?
> >> Do you think Microsoft makes the best software there is?
> >> In that case you need to be deprogrammed :)
> >
> >This is really a strange world. Ok, this is a news group with "Oracle" in
> >it's name. But...
> >
> >All I did was to point on some features, which (in my personal opinion)
> >could be improved with Oracle. The initial post was a very pro-Oracle
> >description, and why shouldn't somebody show some subjects which don't
work
> >optimally on the Windows plattform?
> >
> >It is wrong, that I do not like Oracle in general. It's a very good
> >database, it has some very strong features. But I really doubt, that it
is
> >absolutely necessary, to present itsself that bad, when it comes to the
> >Windows plattform. It's a big task, but complex software doesn't
necessarily
> >have to be installed and maintained in a complex way.
> >
> >I am a professional software developer. I do Windows only. All of my
> >hardware is Windows only. If Oracle wants to have people like me as
users,
> >maybe they shouldn't completely ignore these people's comments.
> >
> >I do not understand why you posted these remarks. I think they are not a
> >fair answer to my posts in this thread.
> >
> >Michael G. Schneider
> >
>
Received on Fri Oct 19 2001 - 11:40:59 CDT