Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Oracle8i vs. SQL Server 2000

Re: Oracle8i vs. SQL Server 2000

From: <ContactUs_at_streamlineindiana.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 07:36:29 GMT
Message-ID: <1ULn5.11411$ZI2.533532@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>

I must say, I have to agree with Neil on this issue. I work for several fortune 500 companies that use both oracle and sql server 7. They both have there good points and some limitations..... but most of those are going away with the release of SQL Server2000 and Oracle 8. However, SQL Server 7 and 2000 win hands down when it comes to end-user ease of use. SQL Server is fast and a non-programmer can program as well as maintain the server.... something that Oracle can't match. However, I understand that oracle 8i is suppose to be more user friendly. Besides, many users have used MSAccess and the switch to SQL Server 7 or 2000 is simple for them. Just to add my 2 cents.... <GRIN>

Thanks,
ContactUs_at_streamlineindiana.com

"Neil Pike" <100577.553_at_compuserve.com> wrote in message news:VA.00000e28.0c891c65_at_compuserve.com...
> Rick,
>
> Please cite specific examples if you can, or tell us who has given you
 this information.
> Everything you have written is completely wrong.
>
> > Also there were major concerns over the last release's ability to
 support > 50 concurrent
 users.
> > This to my knowledge has not been addressed.
>
> Que? I (and most SQL Server customers) have been running *many* more
 users than this on 1.1,
> 4.x, 6.x, 7.0 and 2000. Exactly who had these major concerns?
>
> > Also you will want to consider that SQLServer has NEVER been 7 X 24
 unless you forgo good >
> backups.
>
> Untrue. SQL Server has always been able to be backed up whilst running
 (and these backups
> restore just fine). The performance of SQL Server was degraded quite a
 bit when doing this with
> v6.5 and below, but the degradation is minimal with 7.0 and 2000. (It's
 impossible to backup a
> database without affecting performance).
>
> > You cannot now nor have you been able to run a recoverable backup on
 this product
> > without running DBCC in single user mode. This is a carryover from when
> > Microsoft purchased SQLServer from Sybase.
>
> Again, not true and never has been. DBCC's have no effect on backups or
 recovery. What is true
> is that with earlier versions of SQL Server you could not 100% trust the
 results of a DBCC if the
> database was experiencing updates whilst you were dbcc'ing it. i.e. it
 was possible for a
> corruption to be reported that wasn't really there - if you then wanted to
 determine 100% that
> there was a corruption you would put the server in single-user mode and
 re-run it.
>
> (But this has nothing whatsoever to do with backup or recovery)
>
> > For your sake make them aware of what this option limits the company to.
 If
> > I were you I would refuse to support it and look for another job. If
 you are
> > an Oracle DBA that should not be a problem.
>
> Maybe you should find out more about a product before slagging it off.
 Note I've said nothing
> bad about Oracle - it is a good product, as are most of the other major
 dbms's. They'll all do a
> good job.
>
> Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd
> Reply here - no email
> SQL FAQ (484 entries) see
> forumsb.compuserve.com/gvforums/UK/default.asp?SRV=MSDevApps
 (faqrtf.zip - L7 - SQL Public)
> or http://www.ntfaq.com/Section.cfm?sectionID=34
> or www.sqlserverfaq.com
> or www.mssqlserver.com/faq
>
>
Received on Sun Aug 20 2000 - 02:36:29 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US