Jesse wrote > As far as "business requirements" go, we have a requirement > for a certain amount of uptime and reliability. Oracle7 on > Windohs could satisfy neither, and have no need to spend > money to re-investigate this for newer versions of Oracle/Windohs.
What would that 'certain amount' be. Without trying especially hard our windows/oracle boxes have in excess of 99% availability. Or you could measure it in availability within working hours. It would be higher. No we don't work 24/7. yes we have less than 5000 users and yes we turn over less than GBP150m per annum. For Oracle that makes us small - but then we do use std edition. For real life that makes us rather large and Windows/Oracle 8i will do fine. To be brutally honest windows/sql2000 will do fine as well. Of course if you are still running Oracle 7 on Solaris 2 or whatever the equivalent was in 1998/9 then clearly my argument doesn't hold, but I bet you have investigated newer hardware/os and Oracle since then. If so why not windows other than the prejudice the misnaming suggests. Niall -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Niall Litchfield INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
