Re: should we converting to sql server?

From: Gary Green <gary_e_green_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 08:50:43 -0400
Message-ID: <3cb586bd$1$80229$1dc6e903@news.corecomm.net>

"Joe Sath" <dbadba62_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:U4Ls8.7657$dU3.3039_at_nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
> My boss is asking me to evaluate the stability of sql server to see
whether
> it is stable enough so that we can convert to sql server to save some
money.
> It is said that sql server 2000 is very compatible to oracle.

BTW, when you're evaluating costs you should consider the costs of re-working (read "re-writing") your existing applications. I've worked with both Oracle and SQL Server. There are SIGNIFICANT differences in the way the two packages handle concurrency and locking.

Also -- while (IMHO) SQL Server is one of the finest products Microsoft ever bought (<G>) and they seem to have improved the product in various ways, it has the drawback of running on a Windows / Intel platform. So the "stability" of SQL Server is not the only issue. There's also the "stability" (and all the other *ilities) of the underlying platform to think about.

And finally, depending on your situation, differences in the way the two products are licensed ("need more than 50 users...well, then you'll have to have the Galactic Enterprise license..and that requires bigger, badder hardware to run on....and ....") can drive the cost of SQL Server up significantly. Received on Thu Apr 11 2002 - 07:50:43 CDT