Re: Oracle 10g Server on Windows XP Pro

"Ian Smith" <ian.smith_at_irascian.com> wrote in message news:de616ff6.0405270306.5351f304_at_posting.google.com...
> > That just about sums up your ability to be precise, accurate, and
> > informative, don't you think?
>
> I was just following your good example.

If only.

> After all, here you're telling me you have no problems: "I've
> installed 10g on multiple Windows 2000 Pro, Server, Advanced Server,
> Windows 2003 Server, and XP Pro machines, not to mention assorted
> Linux
> distros, and not once had a problem."

Yeah. That would be the comment I made that you said I didn't, wouldn't it?

>
> While in a separate posting you made "suddenly the day doesn't seem so
> interesting after all, and even stranger nothing about the 10g install
> goes right!"

Nothing like a bit of careful snipping to change the entire sense of something to make your point, huh? Read it all again. There was a deadly brown snake in my garage, and I'd had a drink or three to calm down over it. Get the picture?

> Which of the two statements you've made is the one that's "precise,
> accurate and informative"?
>
> (the link for that second posting is here:
>

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=402be6ed%240%2428867%24afc38c87%40news.optusnet.com.au&rnum=33&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DOracle%2B10g%2Binstall%26start%3D30%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D402be6ed%25240%252428867%2524afc38c87%2540news.optusnet.com.au%26rnum%3D33
> )
>

My God, Ian. You're improving. A link that actually works and a bit of research. Are you feeling quite well?

If you are in any way interested in knowing which of the two statements is more representative of my experience than the other, visit www.dizwell.com and see how many Linux 10g installations I've done and documented (there are pictures, so you won't have to read too much, and you'll be able to see I didn't just fake it).

> We have two DBA's actually. One was against Oracle 10g from the
> get-go,

On what grounds? Presumably not on any scientific ones that involve any actual objective testing, because otherwise you wouldn't be asking for help here, would you? So what? Blind prejudice again?

> the other has had problems over and above what I've
> experienced here (he is installing on the corporate server as well as
> his laptop), it's now been decided to go with 9i. I was just trying to
> get a head-start on getting some PL/SQL procs written by doing my own
> install.
>
> Oracle 9i installs fine on the same PC and is happy to be rebooted,
> which makes the original problem somewhat academic.

Er, no. It means you and your colleagues don't know what you're doing. Which is sad, since several thousand other downloaders can't all have stuffed it up as magisterially as you and your colleagues appear to have done. But whatever. I rest my case on the 'intellectually lazy' charge, though I admire your chutzpah about it: we can't make 10g work, so we'll just give up. Nice. I can't wait for the day you have to upgrade.

If only you would realise that the Enterprise Manager in 10g is using a completely different technology to the one in 9i, and thus has different networking demands (it needs one that's configured properly for a start).

> You are correct though - my "attitude" was a little "emotional" at the
> start and got worse at the "attitude" you have displayed here in
> response.

That "attitude" was to say I didn't think you were incompetent; to suggest you look to networking issues; to suggest you get DNS and IP addresses sorted; to suggest you check your RAM and hard disk allocations; to suggest a clean install; to suggest a VMware install if cleanliness on a physical machine was out of the question; to prompt you for technical information; to suggest registry issues for a machine with a prior 9i install; to suggest you might check loopback adapter issues. Rather a lot of advice for someone exhibiting "attitude", especially given the paucity of technical information I had to go on.

So yeah, you're correct: your attitude sucked from the word go and stayed that way despite every opportunity given you for it not to.

But just in case someone with slightly less attitude is even remotely interested, there is a Release Note available at technet.oracle.com which mentions known issues with doing a 10g install on a DHCP machine, or on a non-networked machine which will be networked later:

Quote ON....
To install Oracle Database or Oracle Database 10g Companion Products on a server configured with DHCP, or if you want to perform an off-network installation and connect to the network afterwards, then you must appropriately configure the Microsoft Loopback adapter as the primary network interface before installation.
Follow this procedure:
Install Microsoft Loopback adapter on the DHCP computer.

After installing the adapter, you must assign it a non-routable IP. The following values are recommended: 192.168.x.x (where x is any value) and 10.10.10.10. Then assign a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0. Modify System32\drivers\etc\hosts to include an entry of the form: <non-routable IP> <Fully-Qualified Windows Machine Name> <Windows Machine Name Aliases>
For example:
10.10.10.10 oracle-laptop.us.oracle.com oracle-laptop

Windows considers Loopback adapters as a type of network adapter. After installing the Loopback adapter, you have at least two network adapters on your computer: your network adapter and the Loopback adapter. You want Windows to use the loopback adapter as the primary adapter. Check your operating system documentation for instructions on how to do this. Quote OFF....

Section 10.22 of
http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/html/B10132_02/toc.htm#CACCBEJJ if you're even vaguely interested.

HJR Received on Thu May 27 2004 - 06:37:06 CDT