Re: SQL Server vs Oracle

SQL7 and SQL2000 have been pretty darn stabile on our compaq 5500 and 8500s on standard raids and our SAN.

We have another group using Oracle on Sun and it work fine also.

MSSQL is a bit less $$ for many of our projects, but what is use depends on project and mostly the talent / experience available to accomplish a task.

I have access to more folks with good sql development skill than oracle right now

steve

"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 Sat Jun 16 2001 - 12:59:26 CDT