Re: Oracle versus Microsoft Sqlserver 2000

Having worked with many of the RDBMSs, including those discussed here, there is no question in my mind that everyone prefers the product they know the best. Not because it is necessarily better ... but because it is what they know.

It is just human nature.

Daniel Morgan

Jeff wrote:

> In article <81ffd231.0203141223.1f5eceed_at_posting.google.com>, mike.mcneer_at_umusic.com (Mike) wrote:
> >far Oracle is looking like a big piece of crap compared to DB2. Whats
> >with this SQL *PLUS Worksheet for one thing? Still havent found a way
> >to stop a query from executing... Its the worst looking and using tool
> >for a database I have ever seen. Google advice is to get a third
>
> SQL*Plus Worksheet isn't my favorite either. I prefer plain ol' SQLPLus
> (windows version) to the Worksheet version. If you want to cancel a
> long-ish query, simply get the mouse cursor to the file menu and
> cancel--though, it will be rather sluggish getting the cursor to move up
> there... try not to over-shoot. ;-)
>
> >-party tool(???) for queries. Db2 = all tools I need to excute
> >queries. I will admit the javatools can be kinda buggy in Db2 but
> >Oracle doesnt even come close to the functionality. Also Whats with
>
> Oracle's java tools are sometimes buggy as well... and sometimes the
> functionality (it's there) is obscurred behind poorly designed interfaces.
> Still, once you get used to them, they are quite powerful in what they'll do
> for you.
>
> But, NO rdbms should be judged by its GUI tools. Oracle would still be
> amongst the best rdbms's in the world even if it offered nothing more
> (tool-wise) than character-based command-line utilities like svrmgrl and the
> old sqlplus to manage it.
>
> >one database per instance?? That another major setback. From what I've
> >seen people get by this by having multiple schemas under one instance
> >not good in my opinion. For Oracle to be a database only company I
>
> This, you'll have to explain what you mean, as you sound pretty clueless here.
> Perhaps our understanding of the terminology (instance, database, schema) for
> Oracle and DB2 are different.
>
> >is being used by tablespaces and bufferpools. As far as SQL Server is
> >concerned never has and never will be a real Relational Database. Yes
> >good for small companies and tasks but would never use it in the
> >Enterprise. Also I dont understand how some people tie themselves into
> >Microsoft products..apparently there not doing their research...
>
> I'd like to see a more fact-based analysis of M$SQL Server vs. Oracle as it's
> entirely possible that I might have to make this argument to management
> someday. Links to white papers comparing the two would be appreciated.
Received on Fri Mar 15 2002 - 10:25:52 CST