Re: Oracle development versions

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<412a65a5$0$29950$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> Alex Filonov wrote:
>
> > "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message
> > news:<41299991$0$29950$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> >> Guillermo Uriarte wrote:
> >>
> >> > Anybody knows if there is something like the MSDE for the Oracle
> >> > database server?
> >> >
> >> > I want to learn Oracle, but it seems there are at least three CDs to
> >> > install and my PC is a bit old.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks in advance.
> >>
> >>
> >> 10g is the latest version, and comes on just one CD.
> >>
> >> There is a companion CD which contains some things you might find of use,
> >> but it's not compulsory.
> >>
> >> Even 9i only took 3 CDs because the sample databases they supplied as
> >> part of the release were included on them: but you didn't have to use any
> >> of them.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter too much how old your PC is, as long as it has plenty
> >> of memory (512MB minimum) and 4 or 5GB of free disk space.
> >>
> >
> > Both 9i and 10g work in 384M (Compaq Presario, Linux RH 7.3 upgraded to
> > Fedora Core 2).
>
>
> 9i, I'd agree with you. 10g? I found it very slow unless it has the 512M it
> says it wants.
>

Starts a little bit slow in 384M, then runs OK. Although there isn't much difference between 384M and 512M.

> Of course, at a push, I've run both in 256MB.
>
> But I wouldn't recommend it.
>
> IN any event, I was making a recommendation, not making definitive
> statements about what would or would not work in extremis.
>
> HJR
>

I'm not trying to pick up a fight, just trying to share experience. :-) Always valued your opinion, BTW.

>
> > Performance is quite decent. Didn't try to run both at the same time
> > though. Did try to run 9.2 and 9.0, it worked OK.
> >
> >> Regards
> >> HJR
Received on Mon Aug 23 2004 - 20:51:48 CDT