On Feb 11, 2004, at 9:31 PM, Chris Nolan wrote:
Done intelligently, though, a Visual FoxPro app that uses VFP for
the GUI and business logic, and which uses MySQL as the back end, is
an incredibly powerful combination. I haven't done VFP development
that uses Xbase-type tables in years. You
Ed Leafe wrote:
On Feb 11, 2004, at 7:31 PM, Chris Nolan wrote:
Yes, we all know that Microsoft *bought* FoxPro's underlaying
technology, that is *FoxBASE*! Everything ever called FoxPro has been
a Microsoft product.
Sorry, you're off by a few years. FoxPro had been out for several
years
On Feb 11, 2004, at 7:31 PM, Chris Nolan wrote:
Yes, we all know that Microsoft *bought* FoxPro's underlaying
technology, that is *FoxBASE*! Everything ever called FoxPro has been
a Microsoft product.
Sorry, you're off by a few years. FoxPro had been out for several
years before Microsoft boug
Yes, we all know that Microsoft *bought* FoxPro's underlaying
technology, that is *FoxBASE*! Everything ever called FoxPro has been a
Microsoft product.
Agreed that FoxPro's xBase implementation is quite quick, but the fact
that it's pushed as a high-performance multi-user engine is a bit of an
On Feb 10, 2004, at 9:12 AM, Chris Nolan wrote:
12. MySQL AB weren't responsible for afflicting the world with the Jet
database engine (Access) or Visual FoxPro, thus they are more
trustworthy than MS! :-)
Microsoft *bought* FoxPro; they didn't develop the database engine.
FWIW, it is one of t
On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 22:29, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> Chris Nolan wrote:
> > Martijn Tonies wrote:
>
> > Additionally, it is an accepted fact that MySQL is faster than the
> > mighty, mighty PostgreSQL.
>
> No, it is not. It is an accepted fact that MySQL is faster than
> PostgreSQL for certa
> Additionally, it is an accepted fact that MySQL is faster than the
> mighty, mighty PostgreSQL. It is an accepted fact that PostgreSQL
> developers don't lie. The PostgreSQL developers say that they are faster
> than most commercial databases in their normal fsync mode. Therefore, by
> communica
Chris Nolan wrote:
Martijn Tonies wrote:
Additionally, it is an accepted fact that MySQL is faster than the
mighty, mighty PostgreSQL.
No, it is not. It is an accepted fact that MySQL is faster than
PostgreSQL for certain tasks.
The PostgreSQL developers say that they are faster
than most com
Hi Peter,
> > > * Assuming that my points below regarding performance are correct (I'm
> > > sure that Heikki will stand by InnoDB and back up anyone preaching
it's
> > > performance benefits), the lower hardware costs are an important
factor
> > > (as in lower for a given performance target).
> >
Martijn Tonies wrote:
Hi Chris,
It seems that whenever we both comment in a thread, you enlighten me
greatly!
;-) ... I'm learning more about MySQL with every post. Ok, maybe
not every post, but still ... *g*
I tend to be a critic sometimes, but I'm a really nice guy. Believe me on
this o
On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 08:38, Martijn Tonies wrote:
> > * Assuming that my points below regarding performance are correct (I'm
> > sure that Heikki will stand by InnoDB and back up anyone preaching it's
> > performance benefits), the lower hardware costs are an important factor
> > (as in lower for
Hi Chris,
> It seems that whenever we both comment in a thread, you enlighten me
> greatly!
;-) ... I'm learning more about MySQL with every post. Ok, maybe
not every post, but still ... *g*
I tend to be a critic sometimes, but I'm a really nice guy. Believe me on
this one ;-)
> >>1. MySQL is g
Hello Martijn!
It seems that whenever we both comment in a thread, you enlighten me
greatly!
Martijn Tonies wrote:
Hi Chris,
I understand that you like MySQL but ...
Hmmfor practical purposes:
1. MySQL is going to cost you a lot less, no matter which way you do
things.
This is a
Hi Chris,
I understand that you like MySQL but ...
> Hmmfor practical purposes:
>
> 1. MySQL is going to cost you a lot less, no matter which way you do
things.
This is a pretty bold statement. Can you back this argument with
some references regarding TCO and development time for a particula
Hmmfor practical purposes:
1. MySQL is going to cost you a lot less, no matter which way you do things.
2. MySQL is going to perform better for the vast majority of workloads.
The only place where MS SQL Server *might* have an advantage is in
situations where it's additional language feature
Hi,
> I have a software of insurance to do quotations directly on the web. It
uses
> a SQL 2000 database and I want to use MYSQL database. Do you think it is
> possible ?
That depends on the requirements, doesn't it.
What do you use in your MS SQL 2000 database?
For example, MySQL doesn't have
choice.
-"Martijn Tonies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Martijn Tonies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 02/09/2004 12:16PM
Subject: Re: SQL2000 and MySql
Hi,
> Does somebody can explain the technical difference beetwen
Hi,
> Does somebody can explain the technical difference beetwen SQL2000 and
MySQL
In exactly what area?
In short: MS SQL 2000 is more advanced, has more build in stuff,
is more expensive, most probably has more security leaks :-)
With regards,
Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - developer t
18 matches
Mail list logo
