Re: Oracle Vs. SQL Server on NT

Malcolm Blackhall wrote in message <35156EA8.E32AD3B6_at_midtown.net>...

>Microsoft offers excellent technical support, i.e. Premier Support.

Well you definetely need a LOT of support to twiggle around those "fixed" bugs that
reappear as "fixed" in the SERVICEPACK++ like the "table lock" bug.

>I have about 20 quad-processor SQL Server systems running under NT. They
 don't
>have to be rebooted much at all.

We've using Oracle databases (on SUN and VAX) that has no need to be rebooted since NT 4.0 was
officially released, whereas ALL of our MS-SQL Server databases (and thats a couple
more than your 20 Servers) need some - lets say - "assistance" once a week.

>SQL Server installation is no more difficult than Oracle, just take the
 defaults
>if you don't care.

That's right, if you wanna go with a "simple" databases you are setting up MS-SQL in about an hour
and don't need to care about "settings", but it is AKWARD if you want to have such kind of "parralel
server" or even "hot standby".

>Of course, some of the questions it asks you might actually
>be relevant to configuring your system, like what kind of network support
 you
>want. SQL Server also has an excellent administration tool called
 Enterprise
>Manager.

Geee, "excellent" ???? That's nothing but some kind of instance manager, so I think you should stop
taking about comparison between Oracle and MS-SQL.

Chris

--
Christian J. Bauer  - Software Development, Machine Control Group
NEXUS informatics GmbH mailto://christian.bauer@nexus-informatics.de