Re: Is Interbase still thriving?


"Angra Mainyu" <angra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Other people will choose other solutions but you asked >specifically, why Access
>and these are my reasons. Perhaps Gbenga has another POV.

Nope. You said it all. With Yukon, Oracle and IBM are
definitely in trouble. I have used Oracle, Interbase, as well.
But my number 1 choice today for heavy duty stuff is
SQL Server and MS Access for desktop application.
Even if I needed to add any others, I would simply use the
open sources like, MySQL or PostgreSQL.

I have written application for an insurance agent that uses
MS Access. Lately I have advised the owner to upgrade to
SQL Server, and I intend to use C# personality of Visual
Studio 2005. Ugrading to SQL Server will be a breeze for
sure! Designing the front end is another matter. But with
Web parts and all of the goodies from Whidbey, it will be
a lot of fun. And you know what, the insurance agent loves
the application, so, it was quite easy for me to convince
him about upgrading to Yukon. As I read, Yukon is Developer
friendly. It is quite understandable that Oracle DBA won't
want any RDBMS that won't require their expertise to work
with! After all, when Dr. Codd came out with his briliant
idea on how to store data, he was not advocating for a system
that nobody would understand.

Yes, using a command-driven approach to do just about every
operation is great, but it is an idea that it's time has
gone. I used to work on VMS / and OpenVMS from DEC. I was
a system programmer on it for a long time. I was resistant
to Windows OS and other tools on it. However, when I started
using it, there was no going back. Of course I missed
VMS / OpenVMS, but where is the market?







.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is Interbase still thriving?
    ... "Even Oracle is afraid of Yukon" LOL. ... SQL Server and MS ACCESS everyday to know well ... Yukon will redefine RDBMS market. ... >The battle at the top won by MSSQL? ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Yet another question about date and time
    ... SQL doesn't have a TIME data type, although it might appear in "Yukon". ... At least SQL Server has a more sensible "earliest" date than Oracle:-D ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming)
  • Re: IOT, memory and transaction time
    ... easily generate it with DBMS_METADATA.GET_DDL if your verison of Oracle ... were pretty consistent no matter how big the table (this transaction ... FOREIGN KEY (versionNo) REFERENCES T_TRANSACTIONS, ... Oracle provides read consistency and SQL Server ...
    (comp.databases.oracle.misc)
  • Re: Database or store to handle 30 Mb/sec and 40,000 inserts/sec
    ... "Writers block readers and readers block writers in SQLServer. ... getting around this fundamental issue and because of it SQL Server ... admitted they can happen in Oracle, I guess Oracle should never been used ... isolation level but you will always disagree because you follow doctorine ...
    (comp.databases.oracle.server)
  • Re: IOT, memory and transaction time
    ... easily generate it with DBMS_METADATA.GET_DDL if your verison of Oracle ... If it was the update statement that references ... FOREIGN KEY (versionNo) REFERENCES T_TRANSACTIONS, ... There are however differences how both products deal with concurrency; in Oracle readers don't get blocked while this may happen in SQL Server. ...
    (comp.databases.oracle.misc)