From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

/m wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 09:23:58 +0000, Adam
> <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near the
bridge"> wrote:
>
>> /m wrote:
>>> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:21:34 +0000, Adam
>>> <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
field.near the bridge"> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dave Ings wrote:
>>>>> I guess using the word "extends" was
ambiguous. How about "MS ships and
>>>>> sells way more products than just Windows". 
>>>> But all (with a minor exception of office on OSX)....on
their own product.
>>> Minor exception indeed.  MS Office on OS-X is crippled enough as to make
>>> interoperability with MS Office on Windows a distant dream.
>>>
>>> I really think MS Office on OS-X is little more than a checkbox that is
>>> used to propagate the false perception that Microsoft supports other
>>> OS's.
>>>
>>>   /m
>> Yup which is why I felt I had to mention it. WRT SQLServer
>> though....that's just sad that it's not on *ix etc. Heck Sybase runs on
>> *ix.....
>
> There was a point where both Sybase and MS SQL Server had the same
> codebase (I believe it stopped around Sybase v4.9).   Since then,
> Microsoft has been "optimizing" MS SQL Server so that it ran better on
> Windows than other DB engines.  So I expect a rather tight
"integration"
> between MS SQL Server and MS Windows Server, using grey-area interfaces
> for performance.
>
>  /m

I'm sure you're correct but if it were such a great DB engine it could run
on *ix /linux etc.


Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5