Re: Oracle is a bigger version of MS Access?

"Niall Litchfield" <n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk> wrote in message news:<3f7d313f$0$8761$ed9e5944_at_reading.news.pipex.net>...
> "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:1065109775.938113_at_yasure...
>
> > If all one cares about is rows and columns one can sustain that argument
> > for a few minutes. Anytime they
> > want to take the most current version of MS Access, load it on the most
> > recent version of Windows, and
> > duplicate stuff I did back in the early 90's with Oracle 7.3 I'll put up
> > hard cash that say's they can't even
> > come close. And that was work that didn't involve LOBs, or object data
> > types, or anything even remotely
> > approaching the capabilities Oracle contains today.
> >
> > First challenge ... in a company with 180,000 employees put the company
> > address book and phone system
> > on every desktop available for simultaneous access. Some will access
> > using various flavors of Windows and
> > other via UNIX workstations. Let employees update their personal
> > information, let managers update information
> > for those that report to them, and continue the heirarchy to the top of
> > the organization while allowing HR access
> > to all information and the ability to block access to personal
> > information for those employees with personal issues
> > or involved in secret projects. Assume you will average 10,000
> > simultaneously connected users.
>
> Hmm a dangerous challenge. Change those figures to 180 employees and 10
> simultaneous connections. Can Access do this? If it can then the simple
> comparison Oracle is a bigger Access is valid - for this application. You
> also run the risk of saying that Oracle is appropriate only for
> organisations with > say 50,000 users. Perhaps MSSQL would be appropriate
> for 500-50000 users? Now I wouldn't make this argument, but it is tempting
> when you start measuring database requirements by simultaneous users or data
> volume or similar.

I was thinking along the same lines - it's a bit of a red herring to say anything far different than the the context of the OP's situation.

But going back and reading the OP after reading the thread so far - it's sounds just like a justification not to use MS! Or 9iAS... In that light, I have very mixed feelings. I know the advantages of being db-centric, and am all-too-familiar with the downsides (like having to work around RI to fix a problem or rule change, for example) - but it's certainly worse to put things that need consistency in programmers hands. I can't remember who it was, but someone advocated that it doesn't matter what toolset you use, as long as you are consistent and don't change just for the sake of change (or marketing!), and invest a correct amount of training and infrastructure dollars. On the other hand, I've seen so much crap java on the web...

It's tough not to have a cynical view of large vendors, since they have a vested interested in locking you in and, um, "maximizing profit."

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/fri/news/news_1n3recall.html