Re: SQL-SERVER vs. Oracle

The Sybase System X debacle was rewritten many years ago. System 12 is definitely a good system.

--
Terry Dykstra
Canadian Forest Oil Ltd.
Check out Sybase Developer's Network: http://www.sybase.com/sdn

Al Manint <al_manint_at_nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Cr3i4.39931$Lf2.1048866_at_news6.giganews.com...
> SQL Server is recoded in version 7 - the engine is different than the
Sybase
> debacle.
>
> --Al
>
> Sybrand Bakker <postmaster_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message
> news:948486956.271.0.pluto.d4ee154e_at_news.demon.nl...
> > I wouldn't reply, both parties have their advocates, and of course I
don't
> > believe in Sqlserver, or any other microsux product that simply has been
> > bought. Sqlserver and Sybase once where the same, same story with OS/2,
> > before Microsoft decided to bail out. Anyway..
> > 'They have been accustomed to everything via the command line'
> > You are not saying Oracle doesn't have a GUI interface, do you. That's
> > simply not true. You may not like it but it does have one. However, as
we
> > all know those GUI gadgets usually have so many defaults, people don't
> know
> > anymore what's really going on. Even if you do have a GUI interface, I
> would
> > force novices to learn it the hard way. They should know what they are
> > doing...
> >
> > Hth,
> >
> > --
> > Sybrand Bakker, Oracle DBA
> > Mike Carter <mike_at_delriotech.com> wrote in message
> > news:ur2i4.52631$905.1058077_at_news5.giganews.com...
> > > MS SQL Server is much easier to pick-up on and learn if you're a new
> DBA.
> > > Don't let its ease of use let you think that it can't compete well
with
> > > Oracle. I have extensive experience in both of these technologies
(SQL
> > > Server 6.5 / 7.0 and Oracle 8i), and I've had to learn them both on my
> > own.
> > > SQL Server 6.5 was extremely stable but lacked a little functionality
> that
> > > 7.0 has taken care of.
> > >
> > > As far as a database solution for Windows NT, I would definately give
> > > Microsoft the edge here. You can do everything you need to do to a
> > database
> > > from the SQL Server GUI tool (Enterprise Manager). Oracle's attempt
at
> > > recreating this product for their database falls well short. Of
course,
> > this
> > > doesn't really bother Oracle DBAs because they've become accustomed to
> > doing
> > > everything via the command line. Not only in the GUI useless (except
to
> > > view objects and, on a limited scale, create/alter objects), but
Oracle
> > > requires way too much digging around in the NT file system and
registry.
> > No
> > > DBA should ever have to worry about registry entries, ever!!! MS-SQL
> > gives
> > > you the added advantage of running over plain old IP or named pipes
> > without
> > > the overhead of wrapping a Net8 over it as well.
> > >
> > > I don't mean to show a bias here, but the bottom line is, if you want
a
> > > stable and easy to use solution running on NT, my vote is MS SQL
Server
> > > 7.0....hands down.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps.
> > >
> > > Owen Southwood <owen_at_listers.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:948387115.9283.0.nnrp-08.c2de2f84_at_news.demon.co.uk...
> > > > Of course, I meant "SQL-Server" not just "SQL" !! sorry.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Fri Jan 21 2000 - 16:53:07 CST