Re: Oracle vs Microsoft SQL Server

my crystall ball simply says the vendor of the OS has the best chance of coming out with the best RDBMS for that platform eventually. that's common sense. I know Oracle is the better product at this point. but if you want to make sure you get your investment's worth in the long run, you ought to look 5 or even 10 years ahead and pick the product which you think will be the best one down the road.

In article <33AF460E.7A82_at_feist.com> rrbatra <rrbatra_at_feist.com> writes:
>
>This guy's crystal ball assumes SQL server will be the only database on
>NT. I think SQL server is going
>to have a tough time getting around Oracle and DB2/NT which is also very
>good now.
>
>I am not sure I can agree with this. Oracle Workgroup Server for NT
>offers much more functionality
>and features as compared to SQL server. It costs $300 per concurrent
>user. It makes sense to go
>with the workgroup server if you are not planning to use parallel
>server. If you look at Microsoft's
>new "enterprise" licensing scheme, SQL server will cost more than
>$300/user.
>
>So, would you not have Oracle on NT,which is same cost as SQL server,
>much better product, scalable,
>comes from Oracle who know databases and are pledged to "open systems".
>
>Also, if Object-relational databases become popular, Oracle is years
>ahead of SQL server.
>
>Raman Batra, Oracle DBA
Received on Sun Jun 29 1997 - 00:00:00 CDT