Re: SQL server Vs Oracle - Technical/prices issues please

> Yes -- that is the case now. But for how long? Microsoft simply don't back
> down -- they win no matter what. I don't doubt that they'd give SQL Server
> away for a short period of time -- just to win. That's just the price
issue.
> Technically, they are always improving -- I was reading how they hired
some
> really smart people to work on SQL Server 7. I don't know much about it
but
> apparently the differences between 7 and the last version are quite
> something -- what will version 8 bring?

SQL server cannot be tuned as heavily as Oracle. SQL Server is still bound to Sybase's basic architecture which makes management easier but tuning is less effective.

SQL server is limited to a single platform. Oracle will run on almost anything, including exoctic architectures such as the Sequent NUMAQ. If your intel box won't do what you want find a platform that will meet your needs - Oracle will come with you. Microsoft is committed to Intel and NT (and the Alpha to some degree which runs faster on other operating systems), and the design of SQL Server is tied to NT. Oracle outperforms SQL Server even on NT.

> Now don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that MS will beat Oracle, or that
> Oracle should be dead scared. What I am saying is that they shouldn't
> underestimate MS.

Actually, DB2 caused many more problems for Oracle than SQL server. However, this was probably due more to Y2K issues on IBM platforms that could convert more easily to a Y2K compliant version of DB2.

I think Larry Ellis has feared MS for years. His attacks on Microsoft have been open and loud. The fact that Oracle is working with Sun to produce a database appliance shows Oracle's commitment to undermining the lock NT seems to have on small to midrange servers. Oracle has also worked with Network Appliance to produce file servers with special file systems dedicated to optimizing the performance of Oracle. I believe that Oracle would like to provide a soup to nuts database solution with a server that could be maintained and run completely from within Oracle.

Oracle will not lower its prices because there is no market pressure to do so. The people who choose SQL Server over Oracle purely based on price either don't need Oracle or they are in for a shock as their application scales up to full load. If the application needs to change platforms for performance, SQL Server is a dead end. The price for Oracle is competitive with Sybase and Informix. IBM is changing the DB2 pricing schme in a way that may force Oracle to lower its prices as well, but the price for SQL server is not an issue.

> Fortunately, there is some light at the end of the tunnel -- Open Source.
By
> running Linux you don't have to buy an expensive OS and you get great
> stability and performance. Myself, I'm considering making my web
development
> API Open Source.

Open source is highly overrated. Look at the problems with the various distributions of Linux. See if you can make Red Hat 6.0 work as well as 5.2. New releases of Linux are usually disasterous. Open or Closed source - new releases of an operating system are usually problematic. As with most software, quality is usually job 1.1. Open source does not overcome this quality issue. Most people in the business world want a complete solution that does not have to be modified at the source code level.

When you can give open source software to a secretary without impacting her productivity, Open source will be worth looking at. Right now, Open source is a curiosity with very limited application outside of small servers or machines used by highly technical users.

Christopher Weiss
Professional Services Division
Compuware Corporation Received on Wed May 26 1999 - 11:12:06 CDT