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

I don't use Oracle, but I do use SQL Server. I happen to be in an environment where
we run SQL on NT server and Oracle on Sun Solaris. Every pricing matrix we have put
together really shows the flaws in Oracle's pricing. I wonder why they had to drop their
prices about 40% after SQL 7 was released?

"Norris" <jcheong_at_cooper.com.hk> wrote in message news:8h5qim$13kh$1_at_adenine.netfront.net...
> If you don't like the pricing policy, you can stop using Oracle.
>
> In comp.databases.sybase Chad <cmcleaton_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Why does Oracle charge by the CPU/Mhz on the Intel platform? When are
 they
> > going to
> > start pricing their products correctly like Microsoft does? I don't see
 the
> > point. Please
> > explain why they do this!!
 

> > Also when you get SQL Server you get EVERYTHING. Why does Oracle charge
> > extra
> > for their options?
 

> > "Niall Litchfield" <n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk> wrote in
 message
> > news:8h2su9$5bi$1_at_soap.pipex.net...
> >> Indeed
> >>
> >> For an NT server running twin 600Mhz processors. Hardly state of the
 art
> >>
> >> 600 * 2 * 15 = $18,000 for standard edition
> >>
> >> for enterprise edition
> >>
> >> 600 * 2 * 100 = $120,000.
> >>
> >> less a volume discount of 30k =$90,000
> >>
> >> don't want to be buying those quad 800's just yet.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Niall Litchfield
> >> Oracle DBA
> >> Audit Commission UK
> >> "Miguel Cruz" <mnc_at_admin.u.nu> wrote in message
> >> news:xe3Z4.14843$Ym2.339330_at_typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
> >> > Adam Ruth <aruth_at_intercation.com> wrote:
> >> > > Interesting, but I bet it's still very expensive. It looks like a
 good
> >> > > move though.
> >> >
> >> > Not cheap, 'tis true. I seem to recall $15 per MHz per CPU for 8i
 standard
> >> > edition. Then everything else, from support to the actual CDs, is a
 separate
> >> > charge.
> >> >
> >> > miguel
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.cooper.com.hk
Received on Thu Jun 01 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT