| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> RE: Comparing ORACLE and MS SQL Server
>>The costs are a wash anymore as far as raw software costs - so
>>the next question you have to ask is:
The cost of running Oracle is 2-4 times more then SQL Server. But those statistics could be due to the smaller type businesses that run SQL Server because they can't afford Oracle ... not because they actually think SQL Server is better then Oracle.
I guess having any backend database is better then having no database at all.
-----Original Message-----
From: david.lane_at_mantech.com
[mailto:david.lanenodaspam_at_mantech.com.invalid]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 12:45 PM
To: comp.databases.oracle.server_at_list.deja.com
Subject: RE: Comparing ORACLE and MS SQL Server
Message from the Deja.com forum:
comp.databases.oracle.server
Your subscription is set to individual email delivery
>I like Oracle very much but this benchmark is totally skewed
>in Oracle's databases favor. Microsoft also has benchmarks
>skewed in their favor. Informix has benchmarks skewed
>in their favor.
I don't know that they are skewed so much as they are not representative of real-world operations. Sure, if I had $1M I could load up a box and get those numbers. The problems start when the PHB says you can only have $1 in hardware for every $2 in software and $5 in people. That is when things get interesting.
As for comparing them, I would have to ask this:
What is your primary OS? If you are NOT a Microsoft shop top to bottom, then Oracle is probably the better system for you to invest in (after all, a RDBMS should be though of as an operating system rather than an application).
>>The costs are a wash anymore as far as raw software costs - so
>>the next question you have to ask is:
Can I get people to run the software. Depending on where you are (like here in DC), getting Oracle people is just slightly easier than getting SQLServer people, but the Oracle people cost more for non-NT based installation.
Finally, there is the longevity question. Microsoft has a habit of changing filesystems more often that Oracle does. This could be a major player if you keep the systems around a while. (I won't get into the issues of breaking up MS etc...those are decisions we all have to worry about).
I prefer Oracle to SQLServer. They understand the enterprise and the demands the enterprise has on it. The software is stable, flexible and available on a multitude of platforms. There are a lage number of software that have been written to help you use the Oracle APIs.
My 2 cents.
DAVID
http://www.deja.com/thread/%3C1d5b4daf.2e1f5d2e%40usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com% 3E
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. Received on Tue Feb 08 2000 - 20:19:01 CST
 |
 |