Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Newbie's Oracle 9i impression: it sucks

Re: Newbie's Oracle 9i impression: it sucks

From: Nuno Souto <nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 21:24:50 +1000
Message-ID: <3ceb812c$0$15148$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>


In article <20020522071819.21008.00000152_at_mb-fo.aol.com>, you said (and I quote):
> Windows far exceeds Unix in multitasking.

Please provide concrete technical proof of this? Or you just shooting marketing blurb?

> Its memory management is also
> superior due to the fact that it is a single process\multiple thread OS and it
> MUST manage its memory better in order to be stable. The advantage of this
> architecture is that it is superior in true multitasking.

And Unix is not single process\multiple thread if requested? How old is the marketing rubbish where you read that? Because Unix has been so for the last 15 years that I recall...

>
> Unix is a Multiple Process\single thread OS and memory management is not as
> sophisticated nor is it as necessary. The advantage of this architecture is
> that there is no shared memory involved and there is little chance of memory
> crash.

Beg yours? First time I recall using shared memory in Unix was nearly 20 years ago. Care to tell me how your claim above of of no shared memory involved is then possible?

>
> Just what are these "must have" functionality you are referring to which
> Windows don't have??? I don't know any functionality which Windows lacks which
> Unix provides.

Ask in the DB2 forum. They claimed here OPENLY not even a year ago that NT was brain damaged. That was why they had to design one of their tools (CLP) with a deranged interface.

>
> The perception (not reality) is that Windows 2000 is unstable. Certainly,
> Windows NT was unstable, but Windows2000 has fixed this problem. This is NOT to
> say it is AS stable as Unix, but it certainly isn't unstable. I have seen
> Windows2000 Database servers run for YEARS (2 to be exact) and they have NEVER
> crashed. I am sure others can testify to teh same effect.
>

Agreed.

> Finally, XP is a client machine, and it is architecturally VERY different from
> Windows2000 Servers. Your IE problem is just that, an IE problem, not an OS
> problem.

XP is tauted by MS as using the core of W2000, refined with a better UI. That is not my definition of "VERY different", but then again...

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam
Received on Wed May 22 2002 - 06:24:50 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US