Re: Oracle 10g Server on Windows XP Pro

"Joel Garry" <joel-garry_at_home.com> wrote in message news:91884734.0405280943.2fc4b8c9_at_posting.google.com...

>
> I think there may be a skew that throws off that deduction. Perhaps
> those who have downloaded 10g up to now are likely "bleeding-edgers"
> who are likely to be able to deal with the problems, or are newbies so
> overwhelmed they don't even know to post here and give up.

Well, that is just speculation, isn't it? The simplest answer usually being the right one, the more appropriate deduction is that likely there is no/few problems.

> That may well change in the near future as more "mainstreamers" deal
> with the issues. I'd surmise if you got a representative group of
> several thousand working Oracle DBA's together, only a small
> percentage would have done 10g so far, and much smaller still in
> production. Are you sure those several thousand downloaders aren't
> several hundred doing it ten times?

The size of it, and the time taken to download it, rather suggests otherwise. You would have to be monumentally stupid to *want* to download it more than once.

> Certainly my experience with OAS10g has been, it's much easier to
> install, but there are bugs and strangeness that I shouldn't be
> finding now that I'm actually doing stuff with it. That's ok, it's
> just an AS. DB server issues are fundamentally more profound. Which
> is probably why OAS10g does not use 10g.
> > [snip]

So that you don't confuse Ian: OAS10g is the application server, not the 10g database he was trying to install. Bugs in one imply nothing about bugs in the other.

HJR
>
> jg
> --
> @home.com is bogus.
> I started using computers in 1972 when I was still in high school.
> http://www.builderau.com.au/webdev/sitedesign/0,39024698,39129283,00.htm
Received on Fri May 28 2004 - 13:35:51 CDT