I almost can't believe that *any* recovery model is presented like this as a 'best practice'; and certainly not as WHY you SHOULD be using this or that recovery model.
It depends totally on the following factors:
- What kind of organisation is it?
- How many transactions are there per hour/minute/second
- Downtime? How long does is take to go back to that point in time?
- If you make a daily full and quarterly DIFFS you can lose 15 minutes of transactions at the most. Can these transactions be added manually again? What kind of transactions are they?
So many questions that this depends on.
What is worse? Taking 2 full hours to restore to a certain point in time (thereby losing 2 while gaining perhaps half an hour), or losing half an hour of data and have the organisation re-enter said data? Most often we find that organisations have shorter downtime (eventhough there's a loss of data) with the simple recovery model because restoring it is easy and often transactions can be resubmitted by the users themselves.
There is NO set of rules or laws that state that you should use either Simple or Full recovery model, thinking in that manner is shortsighted at best. A smart DBA checks each database and defines a recovery model for each database depending on it's use.
In practice, most databases with the Simple recovery model can be brought online far quicker than those with Full recovery models. Please do no take this shortsighted article on face value and think a little bit beyond shortsightedness. I've rated the article as 'awful', simply because it says that people SHOULD use the Full recovery model, it's a mindboggingly dumb statement. Sorry for my rude reaction, but my point should be made with a little bit of force behind it.