Re: Oracle 10g compared to MS SQL SERVER

On Wed, 03 May 2006 09:09:14 -0700, DA Morgan wrote:

>
> I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with Hans. The latest studies
> show Oracle easier to manage than SQL Server and if one is comparing
> Apples to Apples meaning Oracle Standard Edition to SQL Server Enterprise
> then Oracle is not more expensive. One only finds Oracle more expensive
> when applying the logic that EE = EE which is not true in this case.
>

Respectfully, or not, we are *not* disagreeing ...

I was referring to an apples to a bananas comparison, in which the bananas always win when they control the presses.

In a pure apples to apples comparison, I find that Oracle seems to be roughly the same price and cost.

Then, taking into account the mangos that are inherently available with Oracle, (multi-platform, DBMS_, UTL_, etc.) things tend to swing toward Oracle - in my environments. But then we're into apples, bananas and mangoes ... so who can really tell?

I still think the PM is basing comments on either past or future (potentially risk averse) compensation. Probably based on a specific set of experiences. After all, we tend to go with the devil we know .... much easier than getting the real facts. ;-)

-- 
Hans Forbrich                           
Canada-wide Oracle training and consulting
mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com   
*** Top posting [replies] guarantees I won't respond. ***