Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

David W. Fenton <dXXXfenton_at_bway.net> wrote in message news:_a403.1394$nc1.156243_at_typ12.nn.bcandid.com...

>snip
> Anyone who rolled out Win95 with Office95 two years ago, when there was
> already a new release of Office, was very foolish. It's important to time
> your upgrades to fall at reasonable points within the release cycle of
> your mainline software applications.
>snip...
> W2K is way out there in terms of client workstation OS. It's basically a
> version 1.0 OS, and anyone foolish enough to commit to it in a company-wide
> roll-out deserves whatever happens to them. I would say no one with any
> sense will be putting W2K on the desktop until the second half of 2001.

I don't want to sound inflamatory, but if we follow Moore's law as has been argued here so many times, 2001 will be WAY past the reasonable point within the release cycle of W2K/O2K. Which means if you pick up your argument for "W95/O95 two years ago" (1997?) as being out of date and transpond the 2001 date as the one to look into W2K, we can almost repeat the entire cycle.... On and on. Until someone turns around and says:enough!

>snip
> Penny-wise, pound-foolish.

Absolutely! Can't agree more. But pound-wise every 2nd year is madness!

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au
http://www.acay.com.au/~nsouto/welcome.htm Received on Tue May 18 1999 - 11:51:44 CDT