--
"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:1065293312.283932_at_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.
>
Moving features to the appropriate edition would definitely make sense... I
wonder how appropriate sqlserver standard/enterprise is on this separation ?
I see from your other posts on the RMAN issue that Oracle Standard Edition 1
named user license is only $ 300. This would probably surprise a few people
:)
This is the same price we paid 3 years ago for sqlserver - actually we
bought a 5 named-user (or whatever it is called) license and it was $ 1,
500 - same as today's price for Oracle Standard Edition with 5 named-users.
I went to M$ web site and it was not as easy as Oracle's to get a price for
a simple small setup like this. Also, with Microsoft you would be required
to purchase some version of windows, wouldn't you.
It seems running Oracle Standard Edition on Linux would be considerably
cheaper than sqlserver or am I missing something?
> 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 Sun Oct 05 2003 - 23:23:16 CDT
