On Tue, 06 Feb 2001, Jeffery Stevenson wrote:
> Enough monkeys, enough typewriters and enough time can get you Shakespeare.
8 monkeys, 5 minutes - Win98 source code.
Cheers,
GC
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: Gregory Conron
INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
F
Title: RE: (Win2K vs NT4) / RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
Amen on the VMWARE and the value of
knowledgeable SysAds!
-Original Message-
From: Jeffery Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 10:02 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE
On 6 Feb 2001, at 7:01, Jeffery Stevenson wrote:
Date sent: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 07:01:30 -0800
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ... BTW, I use Win2K here for my desktop box. It runs
> fairly well (and surprisingly even runs faster th
Title: RE: (Win2K vs NT4) / RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
No
problem..
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mohan, RossSent:
Tuesday, February 06, 2001 03:51To: Multiple recipients of list
ORACLE-LSubject: RE: (Win2K vs NT4
On 6 Feb 2001, at 7:45, Bill Pribyl wrote:
Date sent: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 07:45:49 -0800
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Just got off the phone w/ Oracle tech support, and they said that OEM
> > *is* definetly supported on Windows 2
Title: RE: (Win2K vs NT4) / RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
Thanks for the extended mail on your direct experience.
Much better than CNET, I guess we can all agree?
-Original Message-
From: Mark Leith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 8:46 AM
To
"Eric D. Pierce" wrote:
> Just got off the phone w/ Oracle tech support, and they said that OEM
> *is* definetly supported on Windows 2000, and should work fine.
I stand corrected. It didn't work for me or a client of mine "out of the
box" but I just went and turned on *all* the Oracle-related
Enough monkeys, enough typewriters and enough time can get you Shakespeare.
Enough developers, enough resources and enough time should eventually get
software that works. BTW, I use Win2K here for my desktop box. It runs
fairly well (and surprisingly even runs faster than NT)...the Oracle db I
Ep,
I have 8i running concurrently on a Win2k system with SS7, and have to say
that it still runs like a dream. Like I mentioned earlier Oracle is still my
favourite databeast, but there are a few things that still cough and
splutter - like OEM for example. The Java side of things can be a little
> Yes, Oracle8i on Win2K is certified, but not 8.0.
>
> Apparently OEM is the problem.
Just got off the phone w/ Oracle tech support, and they said that OEM
*is* definetly supported on Windows 2000, and should work fine. They
said that you don't *have* to have OEM, the usual command line
fu
> I'm used to Oracle7.3 command line DBA environment. Is
> there anything in OEM that I "must have" to run the
> Oracle8.1.7/Win2k?
I'm really not sure -- all I have needed to do with is startup, shutdown, and run SQL
& PL/SQL scripts.
Good luck
Bill
--
Yes, Oracle8i on Win2K is certified, but not 8.0.
Apparently OEM is the problem.
Glad you enjoyed!
ep
On 5 Feb 2001, at 14:16, Mohan, Ross wrote:
Date sent: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 14:16:13 -0800
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> :)...so
Title: RE: (Win2K vs NT4) / RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
Actually I don't. Its usually something else that
gets me to
reboot
the system (which is still rare) but these are pretty low use
databases.
The
real ones are on Unix or Sun.
-Original Message-From: Mohan,
Title: RE: (Win2K vs NT4) / RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
:)...so, no Win2K Oracle8, but 8i is cool, all around.
"Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!"
(Love the haddock.ani .!)
-Original Message-
From: Eric D. Pierce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, F
Bill,
Thanks for the info, sounds vaguely familiar.
(see below for the basically worthless METLink
product certification info.)
guess it is "ayeTAR" time.
I'm used to Oracle7.3 command line DBA environment. Is
there anything in OEM that I "must have" to run the
Oracle8.1.7/Win2k?
regards,
ep
Title: RE: (Win2K vs NT4) / RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
Do you crash weekly?
-Original Message-
From: Kimberly Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 3:21 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: (Win2K vs NT4) / RE: OT RE: Async I/O on
Ever since I got a cool little animated cartoon icon of Capt. Haddock
(in the Tintin books from Belgium) with smoke coming out his pipe to
replace my windows "houglass", i *LOVE* logging onto METALINK and
waiting!!!
( http://www.tintin.be
- http://www.tintin.be/Telecharger/downloa
"Eric D. Pierce" wrote:
> Ross & Mark,
> There are no major performance concerns here (and we get
> Oracle "free" {system wide educational site license} -
> unlike MS/SQL), so what I want to know is: does Oracle8
> generally work well on Windows 2000 server (compared to
> running it on NT4)?
Wel
Title: RE: (Win2K vs NT4) / RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
From what I know, Oracle8 is not yet
formally certified on Win2K, believe it
or not. But, I could be way wrong about this.
Anecdotally, I have colleagues running every
from clients through Net8 Names Servers to
database servers on
I am running ORacle8i on Windows2000 and for what I use
it for I see no difference from NT.
-Original Message-
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 11:06 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Ross & Mark,
There are no major performance concerns here (and we get
Oracle "free" {system w
Ross & Mark,
There are no major performance concerns here (and we get
Oracle "free" {system wide educational site license} -
unlike MS/SQL), so what I want to know is: does Oracle8
generally work well on Windows 2000 server (compared to
running it on NT4)? We will be running on this hardware:
21 matches
Mail list logo
