Re: Bye Oracle.

I did this math already. What I don't believe is that you can do SQL Server on a 2-node, 12 CPU/node cluster for $10K, as you stated in your first post. That, I believe, is what Mr. Morgan was referring to as rubbish.

I agree that Oracle is more expensive than SQL Server and UDB. I also agree that Oracle is pricing themselves out of market share. We used to be a pure Oracle shop, in the non-mainframe world. Now, for all new applications, we must do a technical needs analysis and if spefific Oracle functionality is not needed, we go with either UDB or SQL server because of the cost savings.

What I don't agree with is seeing comparison's of cost where $1,000,00 in Oracle costs equals $10,000 of SQL Server costs. When management see's numbers like this, I spend a lot of time doing damage control. To be honest, the damage control is mostly calling the person who makes such claims, without backing it up, all kinds of unflattering names.

Patrick

Originally posted by Chuck
> "TurkBear" wrote in message
> news:eltntugu0i36hll22csktk4n8kqgaa8vof_at_4ax.com"]news:eltntugu0-
> i36hll22csktk4n8kqgaa8vof_at_4ax.com[/url]...
> > If you use processor and not named user licensing, you will
> usually save
> many $...
> > (cost for 9i is @ 40K per processor )
>
> Now multiply that by 12 CPUs, and 2 nodes on a cluster. Even
> though Oracle
> is only running on one node at a time, they still insist on
> licensing it on
> both nodes, all CPUs. 2 x 12 x 40K = 960K. I can run SQL or UDB on
> a similar
> 2 node cluster for a fraction of that. This is just licensing.
> You need to
> add in support too.
>
> Unless they bring their licensing costs back to earth, I say
> Oracle will be
> at best #3 in market share in 5 years and out of business in 10.
> They just
> don't seem to "get" how far out of line their pricing is. You
> could argue
> it's the best database. You could also argue that Lexus is the best
> car, but

nobody in their right mind would pay a million dollars for one.

--
Posted via http://dbforums.com