Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Newbie's Oracle 9i impression: it sucks

Re: Newbie's Oracle 9i impression: it sucks

From: Daniel Morgan <dmorgan_at_exesolutions.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 15:49:28 GMT
Message-ID: <3CEBBDFB.EE6480BF@exesolutions.com>


SQLJoe wrote:

> Dusan Bolek, Ing. wrote:
>
> >Do you think that MS Windows would has in 2005 (or maybe we should
> >wait till 2010) features like real multitasking, stability or memory
> >management in level like we can see on "obsolete" Unixes from
> >seventies ?
>
> Windows far exceeds Unix in multitasking. Its memory management is also
> superior due to the fact that it is a single process\multiple thread OS and it
> MUST manage its memory better in order to be stable. The advantage of this
> architecture is that it is superior in true multitasking.
>
> Unix is a Multiple Process\single thread OS and memory management is not as
> sophisticated nor is it as necessary. The advantage of this architecture is
> that there is no shared memory involved and there is little chance of memory
> crash.
>
> >Are you sure that unstability in you Windows environment wasn't caused
> >by Windows itself ? My home Windows 2000 are unstable just because I
> >was so dare to install TEAC W-540 CD-writer and even more unstable
> >because of upgrading IE to 6.0.
> >Many computer journalist said how obsolete is Unix comparing to new
> >fresh Windows NT/2000/XP* (fill what you want). However from my point
> >of view (as IT techie/manager in high-end environment) Windows still
> >lacks the basic "must have" functionality that Unixes giving to you
> >for decades.
>
> Just what are these "must have" functionality you are referring to which
> Windows don't have??? I don't know any functionality which Windows lacks which
> Unix provides.
>
> The perception (not reality) is that Windows 2000 is unstable. Certainly,
> Windows NT was unstable, but Windows2000 has fixed this problem. This is NOT to
> say it is AS stable as Unix, but it certainly isn't unstable. I have seen
> Windows2000 Database servers run for YEARS (2 to be exact) and they have NEVER
> crashed. I am sure others can testify to teh same effect.
>
> Finally, XP is a client machine, and it is architecturally VERY different from
> Windows2000 Servers. Your IE problem is just that, an IE problem, not an OS
> problem.
>
> Jinsoo
> MCDBA, MCSD, MCSE+I
>
> >

To make the statements you have your knowledge of UNIX must be extraordinary.

Would you please humor me by explaining the term Q-bang.

Daniel Morgan Received on Wed May 22 2002 - 10:49:28 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US