In our shop we don't refer to it as SQL Server but as the "RDBMS that shall
not be named". <g> (no, I don't work for Oracle).
Jim
"Gary Green" <gary_e_green_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cb586bd$1$80229$1dc6e903_at_news.corecomm.net...
>
> "Joe Sath" <dbadba62_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:U4Ls8.7657$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 - 11:06:54 CDT
