Re: MS SQL Server vs Oracle vs DB2 (&Sybase too)

when MSSQL chocks on the demand, becomes unstable, or when the INTEL box you have just can't keep up and you need an unix solution, tell your boss how picking MSSQL was a 'no-brainer'

Each DBMS has its place, for a smallish organization or department using Intel PCs then MSSQL has serious advantages

However for running large groups or if scalability, multiple platform support (like being able to run on 80 different systems), and stability are key then ORACLE beats MSSQL on almost every point.

Some people mentioned how MSSQL beat Oracle in # of transactions. However put Oracle on a SUN Enterprise server with 12 CPUS and 4 gigs of RAM, 2 tetrabytes (like our system) or how about an IBM S/390 with 32 CPUS, 32 gigs of RAM and 6 tetrabtes of DASD (our mainframe system which runs oracle) and then lets see MSSQL performance compared to that?

Just shows the point that Oracle and MSSQL are best fits for different markets. However, Oracle on NT has been making major strides and should be a strong competitor or MSSQL

In article <8gmamf$6l8$1_at_gaddy.interpath.net>, "Chad" <cmcleaton_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>I have to disagree with the licensing comment. If you are running
>a web server you can buy an Internet Connector license for SQL Server
>and this allows for unlimited connections to the database server.
>
>On another note, I feel like SQL, Oracle, and DB2 all have their place. The
>time
>it takes to develop good application and db design is more important than
>which
>DBMS you use. SQL is definitely the best platform in the Intel arena...
>you'd be
>crazy not to seriously consider SQL Server for any application (even if you
>want
>your web server to run on a Unix box). SQL 7.0 is a real database.. 6.5
>really
>wasn't that great, but SQL 7.0 (and especially the upcoming SQL 2000) will
>do
>anything you need it to do. You get replication, OLAP services and a number
>of
>other freebies that cost big bucks if you buy Oracle (not sure about DB2 --
>I don't
>know what they include). It is no brainer..
>
>"Davide Bianchi" <davide_bianchi_at_usa.net> wrote in message
>news:8glsk6$1imtl$1_at_fu-berlin.de...
>> Pay attention also to the client licence fee. I remember that MS want a
>> licence for each CLIENT accessing the database in an Intranet environment,
>> this means that if you have 1000 users, you need 1000 licences (!!!!).
>
>
>
Received on Fri May 26 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT