Re: SQL Server 7/2000 vs Oracle 8i

I'm sure you misread what he meant - that SQL Server only runs on NT (or 2000).

BUT, you can get LINUX for FREE and then the cost of Oracle compared to the combination of SQL Server + NT is about the same, perhaps less depending on number of licenses and support purchased. MS support is expensive - WA-A-a-ay to expensive for what you get, imho.

sonya

In article <tcyq5.281$_K4.113178_at_homer.alpha.net>,   "Kurt Troyer" <katroyer_at_bcsew.edu> wrote:
> As far as adding the cost of NT to the cost of SQL server, it seems
 to me
> that we also pay for NT when we run Oracle on that platform. By the
 way, of
> course NT only runs on windows. DUH!
>
> "Malcontent" <malcontent_at_msgto.com> wrote in message
> news:39A61712.F652A811_at_msgto.com...
> > sergey_s_at_my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I beleive there used to be a SQL Server vs Oracle
 feature/performance
> > > comparison checklist on both the SQL Server web site and Oracle
 web
> > > site. However, I can't find either one any more. Can anyone point
 me to
> > > any URL that has that info (or something similar)?
> >
> > Here is the only one you need.
> >
> > NT only runs on windows. Oracle runs on just about anything.
> >
> > Oh yea don't forget the add the cost of NT to the cost of SQL server
> > when compairing costs.
> >
> > --
> > You can hit reply if you want "malcontent" is a legit email.
>
>

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy. Received on Fri Sep 08 2000 - 14:04:40 CDT