Re: Is Interbase still thriving?
- From: "Euan Garden" <euan_garden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:25:55 -0700
The only technical relationship between Jet(which I am guessing is what you
mean by Access, because Access is actually an app dev platform that defaults
to use the Jet store although it can be used to develop against any OLE DB
or ODBC data source) and SQL Server is that they are both developed by
Microsoft.
I suggest reading some of the info on this site before saying too much else;
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/benchmarks.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/wintercorp.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/switchers.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/casestudies/alphalisting.asp
-Euan
"Esteban Pacheco" <lastboyscout@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:43075550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sorry about this but, "Even Oracle is afraid of Yukon" LOL.
>
> When FINALLY they decided to put up something better than a "MS ACCESS
> with steroids" kind
> of database now they said is the best. I tought they said that when MSSQL
> 2000 came out.
>
> The battle at the top won by MSSQL? gosh, actually, correct me if i'm
> mistaken, most of the top 500 companies use Oracle or DB2.
>
> The battle in the middel MySQL? middle of what? Open Source community? Web
> site providers? gosh.
>
> Don Abimbola, wrong assumptions takes you to wrong conclussions, and close
> to the entire post is based on the first.
>
> Peace out.
>
>
> "Gbenga Abimbola" <gabimbola@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:4307523a$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "Nick Hodges [TeamB]" <nickhodges@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>For me, Interbase's great strength is the pathetically minimal
>>>administration it requires.
>>
>> Agreed. I have used it before. Microsoft's SQL Server has
>> minimal administration as well, though not as minimal as
>> Interbase. However, Yukon (SQL Server 2005) is supposed
>> to blend DBA / with Developer. In effect, minimizing
>> administration. Moreover, with more features (reporting
>> tools, OLAP (already in SQL Server 2000), into Yukon, it is
>> a no contest for Interbase. Even Oracle is afraid of Yukon.
>>
>> The battle at the top: Oracle, DB2, SQL Server, Sybase,
>> Informix (swallowed by IBM)...
>> Winner: MS SQL Server
>>
>> The battle in the middle: MySQL, PostgreSQL, Firebird,
>> Interbase, JDataStore,
>> IBM Cloudspace
>> Winner: MySQL
>>
>> The battle on Desktop: MS Access, DBASE, Foxpro(?), ... and
>> a whole bunch others in obscurities.
>> Winner: MS Access
>>
>> Overall Winner: Microsoft.
>>
>> ===============================================
>>>Gbenga Abimbola wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> With the release of "Yukon," SQL Server 2005 with all its
>>>> features, and the open source:MySQL, Firebird
>>>> (a clone of Interbase), and PostgreSQL being free, does
>>>> Interbase stand the chance of surviving the onslaught?
>>>
>>>For me, Interbase's great strength is the pathetically minimal
>>>administration it requires.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Nick Hodges -- TeamB
>>>Lemanix Corporation -- http://www.lemanix.com
>>>Read my Blog -- http://www.lemanix.com/nick
>>
>
>
.
- References:
- Is Interbase still thriving?
- From: Gbenga Abimbola
- Re: Is Interbase still thriving?
- From: Nick Hodges [TeamB]
- Re: Is Interbase still thriving?
- From: Gbenga Abimbola
- Re: Is Interbase still thriving?
- From: Esteban Pacheco
- Is Interbase still thriving?
- Prev by Date: Re: Need to buy a Grid component, TOP 3?
- Next by Date: Re: Need to buy a Grid component, TOP 3?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is Interbase still thriving?
- Next by thread: Re: Is Interbase still thriving?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
