Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

This is probably all moot--I'm using Access97 now (I'll check the relevant newsgroups to assess developers' consensus!), and besides, this thread started out as a comparison of SQL Server and Oracle. I'd have to be the first to agree that Access (of any flavor) has its limitations, I use it exclusively as a front-end to SQL Server and while I make no claims for the sophistication of my applications, I will say that their job is to provide data to the AP and AR modules of our SQL-based accounting system--and our users are very happy. PowerBuilder is surely a vastly more sophisticated development environment than Access; Visual Basic offers a much richer set of possibilities for working in a Windows environment--but to me these things hardly justify judging Access a "disaster." Sorry, but I believe that the analysis of data requirements and the ability to design efficient algorithms are substantially more important than the development tool that is chosen--assuming of course that you are working within the specifications of the tool. So I'm happy that I've been lucky enough to have avoided the Disasters of Access95, and I won't embarrass myself further by making claims for Access.

Abbot Cooper wrote:

> 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 - 17:49:20 CDT