From: Bruce Purcell Subject: Re: Comments: Minimum PC H/W to run Oracle Developer 2000? Date: 1997/08/08 Message-ID: <33EB5391.3299DDDA@bigfoot.com>#1/1 References: <33e24339.7684479@news.hacom.nl> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ucdavis.edu X-Trace: mark.ucdavis.edu 870973979 23902 (None) 128.120.125.38 Organization: University of California, Davis Reply-To: bpurcell.@bogfoot.com Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.misc,comp.databases.oracle.tools,comp.databases.oracle.misc I run Developer 2000 on a Pentium 100 with 32 MB of RAM under NT 4.0 I have run both the 16-bit version and the 32-bit version and on my computer, the 16-bit version performs better by a small margin. While the Developer 2000 tools made for 3.1 run under NT, I don't think that Personal Oracle for 3.1 will, so that may be a consideration for you. Performance is not awe-inspiring, but it is quite satisfactory. > On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:19:07 GMT, dougb@world.std.com (doug a > blaisdell) wrote: > > >Hi Everbuddy-- > > > >I just came from a job doing admin for Oracle 7.3 on NT4.0, and some > >design with Designer 2000, and found out what a resource hog NT4.0 is. > > > >On my vacation (serious hackerness), I'd like to get familiar with Developer > >2000 on my PC at home. It's a P133, 32MB, 2.5 Gig. I can get a trial copy > >for either 3.1, Win 95, or Win NT from Oracle. Also, to cut down > >overhead, I suppose I could run against a trial copy of Personal Oracle 7, > >instead of the full blown database. > > > >I wonder whether I should run NT, since it has considerable overhead of its > >own, but on the other hand, NT doesn't crash all the time, like Win 3.1. > > > >Has anyone had experience with the stability/performance of Dev. 2000 on > >any of these platforms, and have any comments about minimum hardware > >requirements?? I'd appreciate it. > > > >thanks, > >doug > >