Re: Developer 2000 weak points??

From: STEPHEN LEONARD ROBERTS <STEVE_at_chigtow.demon.co.uk>
Date: 1996/04/18
Message-ID: <829854297snz_at_chigtow.demon.co.uk>#1/1

In article <4l3v87$mcv_at_gossamer.itmel.bhp.com.au>

           levy.lee.ls_at_bhp.com.au "Lee Levy" writes:

> In article <317442BA.7604_at_prolog.net>, Jerry Gillard <DoubleEx_at_prolog.net> says:> >

> >Hi,
> >
> >We're considering Developer 2000 for our development tool working with Oracle
 Databases. Some of my associates
> >are not overly excited about Oracle tools because of their weak track record
 in this area. However, I think
> >Oracle may have a good product here but am not hearing much about it.
> >
> >From those of you who use it, is it reasonably fast and usable when deployed
 (not developed) on 8mb pcs? Are
> >there any downsides you could throw at me since Oracle has shown me the shiny
 side?
> >
> >TIA
> >
> >Jerry

        I've had workgroup 2000 on my 486DX2 8mbyte system. I have not done anything taxing with it. I am not a relational expert so I cannot cross reference to other products ( I have always found Oracle works easily  for me). My experiences are;

	It only works in VGA mode (this is due to a win32 issue. Mosaic does
        the same).

	Occasionally the systems fails to start. I have never investigated why.
        Restarting windows once or twice gets over the problem. I do
	experience more than my fair share of system lock ups though and so 
        presume this is my machine config rather than Oracle. 

	Starting/stopping Oracle is very slow.

        Running Power objects is  just about acceptable (I get plenty of 
        oppertunities to sip my cup of tea.

	SQL/SQL*PLUS runs fine.

	In summary It works more often than not and I would not run 2000 on 

my machine for slow track business purposes. If I recall correctly Oracle do recommend 16Mbyte min.  

-- 
STEPHEN  LEONARD  ROBERTS

Received on Thu Apr 18 1996 - 00:00:00 CEST