Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

I can take your PC and install Solaris 2.6 or 7 and Oracle on it and support 10 times more users and 10 times faster and more reliable than NT with Oracle and twice as much for NT with SQL Server. And I do run Oracle on NT, AIX, Sun, HP and DEC. SQL Server is nice and pleasant until you actually have users doing work on you servers, at which point you would wish you never used it. We actually tried it because our customers demanded it. It was a total disaster, so we do not even consider it anymore. BTW I like NT and pushed for development and support for our products on NT. Oracle on NT seems to do a fairly good job inexpensively. Oracle on UNIX can do more, but costs a little more (not much). SQL Server on NT is a disaster waiting for the worst moment to occur.

Stilian

Arvin Meyer wrote:
>
> Even without the obvious logical conclusion that both NT and SQL-Server take
> far less training and administration cost than Either Oracle or Linux. (I
> can install and configure both NT and SQL-Server in less time than Linux can
> be installed and configured, and I could probably add in physically building
> the server before Oracle could be installed)
>
> Even without that. I point to Larry Ellison's Million Dollar Challenge.
> While it wasn't using Linux, because Linux couldn't handle the number of
> processors required or more than .9 Gb of memory, Microsoft beat the Oracle
> challenge and spent $600K to the Oracle $10 Million. That's more than 16
> times cheaper!
>
> Linux does NOT cost nothing. In a business climate time is money. It costs
> in time to train, it costs in salaries or consultant fees to implement, and
> it costs in loss of productivity for that time. When time is factored, Linux
> is many times more expensive than NT.
> -----
> Arvin Meyer
> onsite_at_esinet.net
>
> Stefan Skoglund wrote in message <3734D4F0.5C01690A_at_ebox.tninet.se>...
> >Arvin Meyer wrote:
> >> The cost of an operating system has little to do with the cost of the the
> >> software itself. Labor is the main cost of an operating system. Training
> >> curves, configuration times, hardware compatability, support costs, etc.
> >> make NT orders of magnitude lower in cost than Linux.
> >
> >Please substantiate that claim. Are you saying that supporting a certain
> >workload
> >with MS SQL server on NT and Oracle on linux is more than 10 times
> >cheaper than an GNU linux/Oracle8 combo ???
> >
> >That is a pretty strong claim considering that the hw footprint
> >of NT is far bigger than Linux.
Received on Mon May 10 1999 - 14:47:44 CDT