Re: Import problems on Windows Server

On Sep 29, 12:53 am, "Tony Rogerson" <tonyroger..._at_torver.net> wrote:
> > I've been on every version from whatever it was when the IBM PC first
> > came out to XP. Each time I try to give it a fair try. Each time it
> > bitch-slaps me. I use XP 8-12 hours a day. I'm not happy about it.
> > I'm glad most of the work is just using X or browsers to get to real
> > servers. I have no choice about mail and app clients and OS at
> > customers.
>
> XP is fine, so is Vista, like you I use them day in day out, around 12 hours
> a day myself too - laptops and the desktop i'm writing this on.
>
> Most of the problems are not MS at all, they are down to poorly written
> drivers, bad network setups, poor Active Directory performance, admins
> writing scripts and locking stuff down to the point the start screwing up
> the OS, old hardware etc...

Ummmm... those are all things that are part of the MS mileu.

>
> I use SQL Server on XP and Vista for writing and demo'ing stuff, I get no
> problems doing this, and I push the cpu, disks etc...
>
> Because I'm 100% SQL Server and 100% consultancy - going in where
> performance is poor, client is having problems with their SQL Server, the OS
> and SQL itself are fine, they are doing a lot of work and stable; it's
> usually down to training, bad application design or poor archiecture etc...
> that cause problems.

Oddly enough, those are the same problems in the Oracle world. With the OS exception, of course.

>
> > I bought a couple of 500G Buffalo drives for backing stuff up at home
> > (couple of XP computers). It came with Memeo autobackup software.
> > The first time I used the backup, it died with a misleading error.
> > After some back-and-forth on their forum, eventually figured out it
> > was because Buffalo ships the drive formatted FAT-32, and Memeo was
> > trying to write a 4.5G file. Many questions about this on the board
> > and an answer in the FAQ which had no mention of this obvious and
> > stupid problem. Memeo leaves mysterious file handles open even after
> > you kill it off, making for some interesting issues trying to
> > reformat. Buffalo docs say to use their reformatting facility, which
> > doesn't have NTFS as an option. This is typical for most vendors in
> > the MS world and products from MS. At least, that has been my
> > experience over and over for more than a quarter century. Maybe it is
> > skewed, but so? Am I wrong to expect people writing software for
> > money to give at least a modicum of quality?
>
> I think the clue here is that the default for XP and Vista is NTFS and if
> buffalo's apps don't support that then it is a reflection on the guys who
> make buffalo's software rather than Microsoft.

You've missed an important point (though I don't blame you, as my rant was quite truncated): It's not Buffalo's software. It's a bundle of software and hardware from two vendors. I would think each vendor's engineers would be thinking the other is stupid - Memeo's engineers being incredulous that a hardware maker would put out something that defaults to pre-NT, and Buffalo's engineers not even considering that a _backup software provider_ would not think to have it's software adaptable to the operating system. That would be be MS's operating system. I have this vision in my head that some "forward looking upper management" would have celebrated such a "successful strategic collaboration" that resulted from all the "hookers and blow."

>
> When you have a problem with your car do you blame the people who made the
> road?

It depends. If I'm driving in a 35MPH zone at the speed limit and hit an unmarked pothole caused by utility companies digging up the road and improperly filling it, breaking my new $1000 struts, I would indeed blame them.

What would you think about this: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1419/1424523619_8f353d55ee_o.jpg

>
> > skewed, but so? Am I wrong to expect people writing software for
> > money to give at least a modicum of quality?
>
> Buffalo isn't MS, I do like the direction MS are taking with software
> certification - driver signing, Vista/ Windows 2003 certified etc...
> personally, I'd not buy nor install stuff that don't have these
> certifications.

You seem to have missed a bit of controversy over what MS is doing these days, things like not allowing software to run because their servers are down, looking at peoples computers when they say they don't, getting fined for their actions in a number of countries, etc, etc. I'm not sure I've seen any driver signing work properly recently.

>
> > Why should I think SQL Server, especially newer features trying to
> > catch up with what Oracle has had users pounding on for years, should
> > be any different? Whether Dan is biased or coming from a position of
> > knowledge, I agree with his sentiment.
>
> The newer features are there because customers and folk in the community
> like me asked for them, they aren't creating features to catch up with
> oracle, stability is there, give it another 3 - 4 years and measure the two
> database products and their positions - it will be very interesting, I know
> I chose the correct product when I moved away from DB2 and could do oracle
> (well, I did it for 3 months) or SQL Server.

I don't think what customers have asked for indicate proper feature design and incorporation. Yes, vendors should be responsive to customer wants, but that does not mean saddling the entire industry with misfeatures, does not mean core functionality should be ignored in favor of bells and whistles, does not mean you should have everything munged together. Note that I include Oracle in this.

>
> You don't have to think, just check the independant stats - ORacle is no
> longer the lead DB on Windows, it's SQL Server; I think ORacle realise that,
> why else would they delay there recently launched version only bringing a
> linux version out?

I'm hoping the delay is like Orson Welles: Release no wine before its time.

As to the stats: Hey, one organism, one vote! Beetles alone would win!

>
> Anyway, it would seem you are starting to bash MS just for the sake of it
> rather than being balanced on your opinion, all too often with a number of
> oracle dba's - what is it with the attitude? Reminds me of the 17th century
> and missionaries trying to convert the masses to a specific doctrine.

Well, I can only say it so many times: I've given MS a chance for most every major OS release since before Windows (skipped some weird stuff like OS/2), and it has let me down. I'm still seeing problems with the latest stuff (note I didn't even bash Vista!), and it seems to be going in the wrong direction. If you think that's bashing just for the sake of it, I don't really have a problem with that. Nothing it doesn't deserve, stemming from MS' own actions. And since I started on the same OS bg did, I know that he knew better all the way back.

So what makes you think I'm a dba? I was an independent relational database consultant before you had any "industrial experience."

And why do you think open standards are like the Spanish Inquisition?

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/09/28/what-is-com-surrogate-crash-error/