Re: 9i install quit right after setting installation types

On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 00:00:22 +0100, Konstantinos M wrote:

>
> If my not telling you details about my setup is more irritating, then I was
> wrong: you don't need a vacation. You may need a career break.
> When you say that in those 100+ times you never had an issue, you are either
> the first person I 'meet' that managed to work on the first time all ok
> while dealing with Oracle and Windows or you just mean that you did have
> issues but you solved them. In the second case that's what I am trying to do
> too. To solve an issue. That's why I asked a question here. You didn't like
> the way I asked my question ? Now if that isn't ridiculous I don't know what
> is.

What I meant is what I said. I never had an issue with the install (there's a known issue with 8i and 9i listeners on the same box, but the 9i listener will do fine for connections to the 8i databases, so that's easily sorted once the install is completed).

Insert CD, run setup, done. Honestly.

>
>> In each case, starting with a clean machine gives you an opportunity to
>> sort the kak out.
>
> True. But why re-invent the wheel when you just don't know how to put the
> last few nails ?

Because you're not at the last few nails. You can't even get more than 1/3rd of the way through the install.

>
>> And in over 100 installs, I've never had such a problem. So you explain
>> how come I can get it right and you can't?
>
> It's simple: you have more experience / knowledge than me.

It doesn't take experience or knowledge to run setup.exe! Presuming you have a decent CD ROM and clean CDs, I suppose.

>Try to use it to
> help me, not to point out my inexperience.

I've said *nothing* about your level of experience. I offered you a possible solution which you dismissed as simply 'wrong', whilst throwing in personal comments about my needing a vacation.

>Otherwise this knowledge that you
> have is useless to anybody but you, which makes it unnecessary (to say the
> least) for you to answer posts here. Am I wrong ?

Check out Google, and you will discover about 4000 posts I've made there. Let me know when you have a track record of assistance, too.

>
>> Of course, I've never tried installing in anything less than 192MB of RAM.
>
> Well, I have and I have succeeded, too. Go figure.

Not with 9i, I think.

>
>> So, as for my advice being wrong... maybe. But at least I'm running 9i on
>> W2K on a Pentium 4, and you're not. Go figure.
>
> In the end, we all want to have a system that's functional with everything
> that has to be on it. Some people find problems that others don't. I like
> too to clean up PCs and start afresh with windows and oracle but that is not
> always easy, let alone doable. If you had ever had that problem and solved
> it, I would need your help. Since your 100+ installs were all problem-free,
> you are simply not the person to answer.

Your logic escapes me. Since I have plenty of trouble-free installs, I'm not qualified to offer advice to someone who *has* trouble? Perhaps the *way* I've avoided trouble might be of assistance to someone with an open mind on the matter?

> And one other thing. Let's say that we take two identical machines and put
> exactly the same software on (OS, applications, oracle, etc). You think that
> in this senario everything would happen in one machine exactly as it would
> happen on the other ? No errors ? No abnormal terminations ? No Dr Watson
> reports ? No messed up registries by an installation that worked on the
> second time when it should have worked in the first one ?

By definition, if they were two *identical* machines, then what works on one will indeed work on the other, gamma ray strikes excepted.

Look: your first post mentioned nothing about not being free to start with a clean box (as it was short of one or two other crucial snippets of information). Had that been stated up front, then do you think I would have said 'start with a clean box'? You post incomplete information, you'll get an initial response that you may not find palatable. So then you respond with clarification, and you'll get a subtler reply. And so the exchange goes back and forth until the problem is solved (usually). In this case, you got an unpalatable reply, and rather than clarifying the issue, leap off into the ad hominem.

My comments about the Pentium IV bug were addressed to you and everyone else who *wastes time* even thinking about it in the context of 9i. It isn't an issue, and never has been for 9i. So direct your thoughts to more productive lines of enquiry. Such as kakked registries, faulty RAM, faulty install media, messed up environment variables, service pack status, whatever... If you feel the need to respond to a necessarily abbreviated version of that advice with personal comments about needing a vacation, that's up to you.

HJR Received on Sat Mar 01 2003 - 17:46:44 CST