Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: OT: Interesting DB article

Re: OT: Interesting DB article

From: Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 11:48:25 -0700
Message-ID: <1065293312.283932@yasure>


Burt Peltier wrote:

>Different experiences...
>
>I have heard this comment before about price. Is Oracle really that more
>expensive than sqlserver? We bought a 5 user license of sqlserver and it
>was about the same as what Oracle would have been.
>
>The main reason for the sqlserver small setup was for when/if any vendor
>off-the-shelf app came along and had to have sqlserver. Also, we wanted to
>evalute it. We are mainly an Oracle shop (thankfully).
>
>Funny how after 3 years, we have not had a need for the sqlserver database.
>
>And, in at least 2 or 3 cases, IT software vendors we deal with were
>changing their products to work with Oracle. They were not doing it just for
>us, but because they saw market value in the change (where Oracle is by far
>the market leader).
>
>Has anyone see the same from vendors, but for sqlserver (Oracle apps
>changing to work with sqlserver)? Just curious.
>
>Also, I can see where small shops might want to get away with small costs
>and put MySql/Apache out on the Internet. But, putting sqlserver/IIS on the
>Internet sounds risky considering the many viruses you hear about that go
>after these type setups.
>
>
>

My experience indicates that Oracle needs to change its pricing but not by much. Part of the problem is the
confusion as to Standard Edition vs. Enterprise Edition. Some EE features such as partitioning make sense. There is no need to partition a small database. But other fetures such as function based indexes have absolutely nothing to do with size of the database or the organization. A reallignment that put Entrprise functionality into the Enterprise edition and the rest into the Standard edition and then pricing standard edition at $1.99 less than SQL Server would solve the problem.

But to be honest my experience lately has been with vendors spending more for Oracle because they had beaten
SQL Server up and found it wanting. The most recent is a small telecommunications company that tried doing its billing system in SQL Server. Took them 3 days to produce a bill for their largest customer. And this company is located in Redmond Washington so there is lack of local SQL Server talent.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
Received on Sat Oct 04 2003 - 13:48:25 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US