Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

From: Arvin Meyer <a_at_m.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 10:03:54 -0400
Message-ID: <7gs7gf$6pf$1@esinet2.esinet.net>


How do you feel about your automobile? Is it *adequate* to get you where you're going? Or do you require $150K Ferrari (that breaks down weekly) to do the job of a $30K Buick? In business, one should be doing a cost/benefit analysis to determine policy, not reading Playboy or Cosmopolitan.



Arvin Meyer
onsite_at_esinet.net

Jim Kennedy wrote in message ...
>How do people feel about adequate ? If you just had sex with someone and
>they said you were adequate how would you feel? I dare say I would not be
>boasting about my prowess. If they told someone else that my sexual
>performance was adequate I daresay that would not be a ringing endorsement.
>Jim
>
>AJ wrote in message <7gn9in$jaq$1_at_news.ses.cio.eds.com>...
>>You will probably get a different response to this based on the most
>>recently/frequently used dbms of the responder. Having said that (and
yes,
>>I am currently using SQL Server), for most applications SQL Server is
lower
>>cost (Oracle is 3 to 12 times more expensive according the a recent study
>by
>>the Gartner Group) and adequate for everything but very large databases.
>>SQL Server as a general rule also has lower support and hardware
>>requirements. The biggest plus of Oracle is that it runs on unix as well
>as
>>NT.
Received on Thu May 06 1999 - 09:03:54 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US