Re: Oracle 10g Server on Windows XP Pro

"Jeff" <jeff_at_work.com> wrote in message
news:c9kh0e$dmq$1_at_cronkite.cc.uga.edu...
> In article <40bcf07b$0$31675$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>, "Howard J.
Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote:
>
> >> They imply one thing, at least: that the 10g database has not yet
> >> been shown to be fully sorted out for use with Oracle's own
> >> application server, although it is "certified."
> >
> >Yes, but it is ever thus. When "9iAS" first came out, it didn't work with
> >the 9i database, IIRC, but only 8.1.7.
>
> 9iASr2 used the 9ir1 database... seems they are always (and purposely) a
step
> behind with the database.
>
>
> >better in the latest version, I haven't checked). 9iAS first release was
> >awful. Second release was getting there. But it is obviously, er, shall
we
> >say 'immature', and I would never say that about the rdbms. So I don't
know
>
> Hmmm. I'd say 9iASr2 was still pretty awful from my experiences with it.

Let me put it this way: there was never a class I taught on it where the thing didn't crash or go distinctly wobbly, usually by Monday lunchtime. That was heaps better than 9iASr1, however, which usually didn't survive until morning tea.

We don't disagree. I was just trying to be a little polite about it!!

Regards
HJR Received on Wed Jun 02 2004 - 09:29:19 CDT