Re: SQL Server vs Oracle

I actually have much more experience with MSSQL Server (V6.5 & V7.0, not 2000) than Oracle. I can't comment too much on license cost, fortunately I don't have to deal with that aspect. I have found that if you do relatively simple straight forward stuff then MSSQL is pretty fast and robust. It does have a lot of quirks. New releases can cause nightmares. There are plenty of bugs, you tend to hit them when doing more 'creative' stuff. MS tries to hide the internals rather than exposing them the way Oracle does with V$ views etc. MSSQL seems easier to install and administer than Oracle, and though I'm still fairly new at Oracle I think I'm being pretty objective there. MSSQL tech support are fairly poor IMO, and they seem to be raising the cost of support way too high!

In summary, if the app is not too large or complex, MSSQL might be a good choice and possibly less cost (for now). For larger apps and large programming teams I think Oracle looks more and more attractive.

Good Luck, Joe

"Kev" <java2e_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cglfit4k2vrr88bcbvsc1j844pk9qs3v08_at_4ax.com...
> 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 - 16:22:24 CDT