Re: Oracle and Microsoft SQL Server

I only compare the two vendors because the question was about Oracle and SQL Server, and these are the only RDBMSs I have experience with.

DB2 on NT has had very good reviews though. IBM is comitted to develop all their (non O/S) software for NT as well. It seems as if IBM has realized that integration with NT has great advantages, is isn't only porting their software to NT, but really using the OS. They might well turn out to be the only viable competition againt MS BackOffice.

Don't underestimate SQL Server though. For a pure NT environment, it is probaly the better choice. For a mixed environment, esp. with mainframes, I would agree that one should give DB2 a good look.

Martin Verta made a good point in the corresponding thread in comp.databases.ms-sqlserver: "Anyway, I think it's great that the RDBMS market is so competitive. It's hard to make a wrong choice no matter what vendor you go with."

G

In article ,
  Jeremy Rickard wrote:
>
> In article , Govert van Drimmelen
> writes
>
> >1. If your platform policy is Microsoft directed, and NT is a choice
> >available to you, go for MS SQL Server. NT is a good platform getting
> >stronger very quickly. MS SQL Server rides on the back of the OS to a
> >large extent.
>
> You're only talking about the 2 RBMDS vendors, presumably?
>
> If you want a really fully featured and reliable RDBMS for NT then
> consider DB2. The current version, 2.1, was a major re-write done with
> NT partly in mind (but also UNIX and OS/2), and independent research,
> such as the Bloor report, indicates it is more powerful, scalable and
> robust than SQL Server.
>
> Version 5 (big jump!), now in late beta, has a greatly extended GUI, and
> incorporates the parallel edition features (previously a separate UNIX-
> only version of DB2). This has been reported (I can't remember where)
> to even better SQL Server in the area of ease-of-use - traditionally not
> a DB2 strength.
>
> If I was a large company choosing a database for NT, DB2 would seem a
> natural choice to run along DB2 on my mainframe. This would be a more
> important factor than integration with my UNIX database (typically
> Oracle), since the mainframe database would normally host my corporate
> reference data, and many of the systems that typically feed MIS
> databases on UNIX and NT. If NT started to replace UNIX in time, I
> would then be left with a single database on both platforms.
>
> I suspect smaller companies, probably currently using Oracle on UNIX,
> will be a harder battle to win. But *if* UNIX does start falling to NT,
> Oracle's position could be weakened, and then the board will have opened
> up, so who knows?
>
> --
> Jeremy Rickard

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet