Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

Access 95 is considered to be a "universally acknowledged disaster" in the community of Access developers who frequent comp.databases.ms-access -- I doubt that many there would disagree with my assessment. The entire world might not agree with this opinion, so I suppose that the word "universally" should not have been used, but I generally expect people not to take things so literally. There is still room in the world for slight hyperbole, no?

At any rate, if you have not had problems w/ Access 95 then I would opine that you have not developed anything of great sophistication with it -- this is not a slam, just an observation.

--
Abbot Cooper
cooper_NoSpam_ab_at_mediaone.net
Remove "_NoSpam_" before sending

Greg Druian wrote in message <37385F4E.D5DB7FE5_at_europa.com>...
>A "universally acknowledged disaster?" Not in my experience, not by any
means.
>I guess I haven't heard Access 95 referred to in this way before; BTW,
where do
>we go to find the most up-to-date list of what is universally acknowledged?
>
>Abbot Cooper wrote:
>
>> Like everything else under the sun, SQL Server can be very easily ground
to
>> a halt be a poor design. The previous poster's "disaster" was undoubtedly
of
>> his own making I would venture to say. That doesn't prove that SQL Server
is
>> better, but it does refute the notion that SQL Server is a "disaster" in
and
>> of itself. If it were a disaster people would not be using it in the
numbers
>> which they do... Example: Access 95 is a universally acknowledged
disaster.
>> I would venture to say that there are probably more people using Access
2.0
>> rather than 95. The point is that people do _not_ use horrible software
if
>> they can avoid it.
>>
>> --
>> Abbot Cooper
>> cooper_NoSpam_ab_at_mediaone.net
>> Remove "_NoSpam_" before sending
>>
>> Nuno Souto wrote in message <7h94if$nmj$1_at_m2.c2.telstra-mm.net.au>...
>> >Kerry Scott <kerrysco_at_msn.com> wrote in message
>> >news:OIX0sX1m#GA.245_at_cpmsnbbsa03...
>> >> It is a "disaster", he says. And yet, there are so many running it
with
>> >> plenty of users. I have heard this same argument for almost any
software
>> you
>> >> care to mention. Experience tells me that "disastrous" software is
often
>> as
>> >> not, the fault of a disastrous administrator.
>> >
>> >One day people in this industry are gonna learn that saying "there are
so
>> many
>> >using <insert>" means absolutely nothing! Never believe the statements
>> >of a software manufacturer! No matter how big it is. Period.
>> >
>> >I still well remember the wild statements put out by MS early in the
life
>> >of SQL-Server, making it look like a "fait-accompli" that all other
>> databases
>> >were crap. This sort of stuff was done by IBM early in the 60's and
70's,
>> >then many UNIX makers in the 80's (including ORACLE) and now we all
>> >have to suffer this idiocy again in the 90's. Will these guys never
learn?
>> >Some of us have been around in this industry a bit longer than the
latest
>> >MS re-invention of old software...
>> >
>> >As for the "disastrous administrator", I'd be VERY surprised to learn
>> >that a bad administrator can stuff up a SQL-Server database. After all,
>> >MS INSISTS that this product can be run by morons
>> >(read: MS-certified morons).
>> >
>> >--
>> >Cheers
>> >Nuno Souto
>> >nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au
>> >http://www.acay.com.au/~nsouto/welcome.htm
>> >
>> >
>
Received on Tue May 11 1999 - 15:12:30 CDT