Re: Oracle vs. MS SQL Server

CS wrote:

> We support 100 companies nation wide and of those, 5 have Oracle and the
> rest MSSQL. They are all running on NT
>
> Recent upgrades to our product with implementation, cost run 2x higher on
> Oracle than MSSQL
>
> Oracle seems to be an essay test instead of pick and choose.
>
> Clients seem to report more downtime with oracle due to corruption. I won't
> swear to it but it seems that way.
>
> hth
> CS
>
> "dmz17" <dmz17_at_nospam.nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.03.04.21.10.38.874474_at_nospam.nowhere.com...
> > On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 15:15:20 +0000, Phil wrote:
> >
> > > Looking for a completed evaluation comparing Oracle with MS SQL Server.
> Any
> > > ideas?
> >
> > I am afraid you will have to figure out your needs and how they would be
> > filled by any particular vendor for yourself.
> >
> > Go to Oracle's website and look, then go to Microsofts.
> >
> > Pick the vendor who appears less arrogant.
> >
> > This may be the hardest task.
> >
> > All else being equal, any modern RDBMS will do the job. The rest is
> > marketing.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > dmz17

Then someone is totally incompetent or engaged in sabotage.

You don't seriously believe that almost every major company and government on the planet is putting mission critical applications into Oracle when problems such as you describe exist.

Go to Microsoft, find someone working on their SAP accounting system and ask them what RDBMS is being used as the repository.

No one with an IQ over room temperature could truly believe Bill Gates would use a competitors product unless he had a darned good reason to do so.

Daniel Morgan Received on Wed Mar 05 2003 - 10:57:48 CST