Re: SQL Server 7/2000 vs Oracle 8i

In article <8pbd7o$cle$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com>,   tandym_at_hotmail.com wrote:
> I'm sure you misread what he meant - that SQL Server only runs on NT
> (or 2000).
>
> BUT, you can get LINUX for FREE and then the cost of Oracle compared
 to
> the combination of SQL Server + NT is about the same, perhaps less
> depending on number of licenses and support purchased. MS support is
> expensive - WA-A-a-ay to expensive for what you get, imho.
>

Have you ever priced Oracle?

Last I checked, in NT/SQL if you decide to go from a 500MHZ processor to a 750MHZ you didn't have to pay 50% more for the software. Also you don't have to pay double the cost because you have a dual processor box..or four times if you have a quad.

Oracle pricing is fucked up. End of story. Where's the variable costs to justify paying more because you have a 500MHZ vs a 750MHZ processor? Then they charge you more depending onthe type of computer? 24X for a mainframe?

"Sir. This tank of gas you're pumping. I see you are putting it into a sports-car. I have to charge you 24 times the cost."

MS Support is $200(?) a support incident. I do networking and maybe use it 3-6 times a year. Thats $1200 tops. If you need to make significanly more calls than that then go find another career.

But at least you get SOMETHING out of that $1200. Why should I pay 50% more because I want to replace my 500MHZ proc with a 750?

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy. Received on Fri Sep 08 2000 - 14:34:53 CDT