Re: SQL Server vs Oracle

For what it is worth I can agree with you as well. SQL Server has not been all that stable for us either. A client I was working at went from Oracle - SQL Server - Oracle. SQL just did not have the stability and it would crash often.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:53:12 -0400, M Hashim <mhashim_at_passport.ca> wrote:

>Just remember - the grass is NOT always greener on the other side of the
>fence.
>
>Have you done your licensing costs?
>Have you taken into consideration upgrades?
>
>I did a similar price compare and was totally shocked that Oracle was
>the cheaper. It all depends on your app.
>
>I came across someone who complained bitterly about SQL Server crashing
>repeatedly. Just for your info, I've been running Oracle on NT for the
>last 2 years on a few servers with separate DBs, and am yet to
>experience a failure. Knock on wood (monitor).
>
>Any downtime is costly - factor your costs accordingly.
>
>BTW, you get what you pay for.....
>
>
>scott felten wrote:
>
>> Our company is fustrated by Oracles enormous licensing costs and we
>> are looking at SQL Server. What would we loose by going to SQL
>> Server? Or what are some links that talk to this subject.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Scott Felten
Received on Wed Jun 13 2001 - 16:08:48 CDT