Re: What else against 9.0.1

Karsten Farrell <kfarrell_at_belgariad.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1935433ed053091a98978a_at_news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
> p.vanrijnRM_at_THISzhew.nl said...
> > Dear colleagues!
> >
> > Last week one of our software vendors has been trying to get the middleware
> > product Verastream (WRQ) working with our 9.2.0 (test) database. So far they
> > haven't been very successful and they (i.e. WRQ) suddenly decided to change
> > their strategy: they don't support 9.2.0 anymore!!
> >
> > In stead we should use 8.1.7 64-bit (we currently use 81.7. 32-bit) or
> > 9.0.1. I don't like the idea at all, both 8.1.7 and 9.0.1 are desupported at
> > the end of this year, but some vendors don't think just using a desupported
> > Oracle version is a big deal.
> >
> > So far my arguments against 9.0.1 are the approaching desupport date and
> > better reliability of final releases like 9.2.0.
> > What I'm looking for are additional arguments against using 9.0.1. Anyone
> > any idea?
> >
> > regards,
> > Peter
> >
> > PS And no, choosing another software vendor is not really a possibility. I
> > am not in the position to ban applications just because the Oracle support
> > is poor.
> >
> >
> >
> You might find something in the "new features" document:
>
> http://otn.oracle.com/products/oracle9i/pdf/9idb_rel2_features.pdf

You might find even more if you go to metalink.oracle.com, select patches, and view the readme for 9.2 patch set.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.fool.com/research/reports/orcl.htm