Re: What else against 9.0.1

wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au (Nuno Souto) wrote in message news:<73e20c6c.0305221707.38d559d9_at_posting.google.com>...
> "Paul Brewer" <paul_at_paul.brewers.org.uk> wrote in message news:<3ecd1c08_1_at_mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com>...
>
> > the initial release on my home PC to play with, until it get serious (unless
> > of course it requires 2 gig of RAM and 30 gig of disk space).
>
> I'll bet you anything you want it will require
> MORE than what you just said. ;)
>
> Get ready for another round of h/w upgrades, people!
> And that will put such a damper on upgrades to 10i
> it's not even funny to explain.
>
> I'm actually counting it will be 64-bit exclusive,
> which will rule out just about any quick-and-dirty
> Linux box out there. Then we'll see the proverbial
> hit the other revolving thing...

That seems an odd thing to say. What in Oracle could care about OS bits? I would hope they would have isolated any such code and be able to deal with it one way or another, having to have dealt with it to now. The trend has been for O to replace OS, right? As well as the ability to deal with whatever external issues in an abstract manner? Yes, more horsepower, yes more silicon, but bits?

Maybe I'm just being unusually optimistic...

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/fri/business/news_1b23gateway.html