Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

From: s <skb_at_bl.com>
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 16:17:20 -0700
Message-ID: <373B5D80.E60D6574@bl.com>

I agree 100%.
I've been a DBA for both (currently Oracle and never going back to the other), and there is absolutely no comparison in terms of:

- scalibilty
- stability
- use

Let me say, my previous job was an an SQL Server administrator and it was HELL. The product seemed to be full of bugs, and yes we were really pushing it to the limit. The company was stuck with it, because all of their code was written for it. (they were a start up that grew quickly, but took the cheap route -- SQL Server on NT). Was it really less expensive for them? NO, because their unfortunate answer for the performance problems (the database servers were configured based on recommendations from Microsoft) was to add more hardware. UGH! I was paged all the time for performance problems and replication problems/bugs.
Now that I've been in the Oracle world for awhile I must say that MS is a departmental database server, and Oracle is true Enterprise class. (and the pager RARELY goes off).

Jerry Gitomer wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> I think you are ignoring one significant factor in your anticipation of
> the outcomes of the four ongoing battles you list. Only one of the four is
> purely a desktop product.
>
> I agree with you that Microsoft will eventually bury Netscape since it
> is a desktop product and Microsoft owns the desktop.
>
> I believe they will not succeed in displacing their competition in the
> other three areas.
>
> In the case of NT Vs. Unix the need for large scale systems which
> commodity products from Intel and Microsoft can't afford to satisfy (please
> note that both companies are built on the sale of high volume commodity
> products that can be used out of the box without significant new
> development).
>
> In the case of IIS Vs. Unix web servers -- the last time I looked Apache
> had by far the largest market share and their market share is growing. I do
> believe that IIS will dominate the low end of the market, but I think that
> the competition will capture the high end.
>
> Now as to SQL Server Vs. Oracle. First SQL Server doesn't even run on
> Unix much less any mainframes, so the high end of the market belongs to
> Oracle and Microsoft isn't even a contender. Now as to NT. Oracle's
> penetration of the NT market is growing rapidly at the expense of Microsoft.
> Last year Oracle's NT business increased 55% and SQL Server only increased
> 12%. Oracle now has a 46% share of the NT database market and SQL Server
> has 29.7% It looks like Microsoft is losing both the battle and the war.
>
> regards
>
> Jerry Gitomer
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> David wrote in message ...
> >Donning Asbestos Flame Suite:
> >
> >Just like all things Microsoft, it is inevitable SQL Server will dominate
> >the database market. Just think about it, there hasn't been a market that
> >Microsoft hasn't ultimately dominated if given enough time. I remember in
> >the early days when there were fierce battles and speculation as to who
> >would dominate this market or that. Lets take a look at it:
> >
> >Microsoft has dominated the following and has left its respective
> competitor
> >for dead:
> >Operating Systems: Windows(DOS) Vs. OS/2
> >Word Processors: Word Vs. WordPerfect
> >Spreadsheets: Excel Vs. Quattro Pro
> >C++ Compilers: MSVC vs. Borland
> >Office Suites: MS Office vs. Lotus Suite
> >
> >Microsoft is currently engaged in the following battles:
> >NT vs. Unix
> >IIS vs. Unix web servers (apache etc)
> >SQL Server vs. Oracle
> >Internet Explorer vs. Netscape Navigator
> >
>
> << BIG SNIP >>
Received on Thu May 13 1999 - 18:17:20 CDT