Re: why>?

Harlan;

Databases are not big and complex.

Oracle makes them big and complex.

SQL Server has won the war.
Databases are a better long-term and short-term solution than anything
ever written in a spread***.

It is ridiculous that you attack me for dis-agreeing with you.

I am here to find out WHY you guys use excel; tell me how you first
started using excel; etc.

I just dont understand what excel has that access doesn't.

you can't say 'desktop presence' because everyone has access on your
machine; your company is whacked.

regarding adobe and oracle-- if adobe and oracle and crystal reports
merged-- maybe they would have a fighting chance against SQL Server.

and for the record-- Access IS the worlds' most popular database.

Hands-down; Access is used more than anything else in the world.

If you include other products that are based on JET-- like Excel and
Project; Active DIrectory and Outlook.. and MS Project... and a dozen
other internals for windows-- Access and JET is by far the most popular
database in the world.

I mean seriously; is there anything else that is even close?

XML?

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

XML is crap and it's not going to make your spreadsheets better, bigger
or faster.

I've got XML driven spreadsheets right now.

and i've got more rows and columns in my excel than you guys do.

i have a 250k row limit in Excel.

i have drill down in my pivotTables.

i just think that it's hilarious that

a) I have a better Excel than you
b) i have better pivotTables than you do
c) I am 100,000 times more scalable than you are; i would call it
'infinitely' but i dont want to get bogged down in the semantics
d) i've got drag and drop for all my reporting needs.
e) i can share my spreadsheets and pivotTables with multiple users at
the same time.
f) I am a better, stronger, more efficient spread*** developer than
any of you kids.

so what in the hell are you talking about Harlan?




Harlan Grove wrote:
aaron.kempf@xxxxxxxxx wrote...
there's a big difference between an obscure database.. and one that
leads the market

www.olapreport.com - it is obvious that IBM and ESSBASE and ORACLE are
all a waste of friggin time.
...

Then why doesn't Microsoft have the 90%+ market share they do for
Office?

Numbers are difficult for you to understand, aren't they?

As it is right now; they're stock is tanked.
...

'They' being Oracle. Their stock has traded between 11.75 and 15.21
over the last year and its latest close was 14.15, acording to Yahoo!
How do you define 'tanked'? Or try charting Oracle and Microsoft share
prices against each other. Oracle looks like they've done a wee bit
better over the last couple of years. You seem to have difficulty with
facts as opposed to 'data'.

Microsoft could buy them without even going to the bank.

First off, Microsoft's total current assets are $48.7 billion while
Oracle's market capitalization is over $75 billion. More pesky facts,
drat them.

Microsoft should be allowed to buy Oracle. It would be nice if
Microsoft had 2 competing enterprise level database systems
...

If Microsoft can't even provide XPS in Office 2007 or Windows Vista
without Adobe threatening to sue (and it would seem Microsoft's lawyers
take the threat seriously), do you really think they wouldn't have even
bigger antitrust problems if they went after Oracle.

Oops. Sorry. I made the mistake of taking your utterances as fruits of
a *thought* process rather than a primal screem. Of course you know as
little about the law as you do about business other than DBA/DBMS
developer business.

And I tell you... sitting around making spreadsheets doesn't help you
to become a database stud.
...

Neither does using Excel help one to become a septic tank stud, but I
fail to see the appeal of that either.

And you're kidding yourself when you say 'I dont need to be a db stud'
...

No, you're kidding yourself that it matters more than anything else.
All businesses produce data, but producing and analyzing data isn't why
most companies are in business. It may be why you're in your particular
business, but you can't see beyond your own work domain.

I was expecting WinFS to make it so that we would each have a database
on every single desktop at your company-- the way that things should be.

Won't happen. There are lots of free databases already, so software
cost isn't a deciding factor. Could it be that most users aren't
prepared to use console interfaces to write text queries? Could it be
that the cost of database front-end systems, such as Access, are a
factor? Will Microsoft start giving away Access when they roll out
WinFS? Then there's training costs. Unlike you, most people won't spend
their own time learning databases.

That said, companies are cutting their own throats by letting people
with no development training or experience make spreadsheets and other
applications that many other people could use. And documentation of
inhouse software, spread*** or otherwise, is a joke in most
companies. That wouldn't change if all spread*** models magically
became database models.

User Instances-- in SQL Server 2005 Express--- is absolutely priceless.
I mean; you can open a MDF -- SQL Server Database-- Without doing
anything-- you open it just like a word document.
...

Meaning you have an application that can open it. Opening a Word
document in Notepad isn't a pleasant experience. Is the software that
opens MDF files free?

I just think that it's a shame that you guys don't use ANY desktop
reporting tool. . . .
...

Since I don't produce reports, why should I use any reporting tools?
Not quite accurate. I produce expense reports, but they're on the
intranet, so my desktop is irrelevant.

don't sit there and think 'oh but i wouldn't use a data entry app'
...

I do. And most of the data comes from outside my company, and not much
of it goes into my company's databases.

there isnt' a person in the world that shouldn't be learning databases.
...

More incoherence. Just because databases are the cornerstone of your
job (and it seems your existence) doesn't mean they're of more concern
to most people than the workings of antilock breaks or televisions.

.

Loading