Re: Oracle development versions

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<412aa52f$0$1427$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> Alex Filonov wrote:
>
> >> > 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.
>
> Why is making a clarification nearly always interpreted here as wanting to
> pick a fight?
>
> I made a statement about 512MB
> You clarified it works in 384MB
> I elaborated that I never meant to imply 512MB was an absolute numeric
> requirement.
>
> There is no fight-picking there. It's actually called agreeing with you, if
> you would but hear it.
>

I hear it... :-)

> HJR
Received on Tue Aug 24 2004 - 12:32:31 CDT