--
"Database Guy" <dbguy101_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7fdee71c.0310271703.11557ae0_at_posting.google.com...
> Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:<1067277048.821099_at_yasure>...
>
> > >>>seperate date and time datatypes?
> > >>>
> > >>Why? To what possible gain? Time bereft of date is almost always
> > >>meaningless.
>
> Don't know whose comment this was, but what about DATE bereft of TIME?
> Also DATE, TIME and TIMESTAMP data types are part of the SQL standard.
>
> > When a room full of industry professionals (my students) can
> > name a dozen or more Microsoft products and still think Oracle is a one
> > product company Oracle's marketing staff should be reduce to half-pay
until
> > they earn the rest of their salary. Pricing wise ... its
> > going to change. Because if it doesn't Oracle's marketshare will erode.
>
> Does 70% of Oracle's turnover come from DBMS sales or is it now only a
> little over 60%? I forget. The point is that Oracle *is* unhealthily
> dependent on database sales. And yes they are overpriced, but because
> of the heavy dependence on database sales, if they reduce the prices
> they hit the bottom line very, very hard. But if they don't they keep
> losing share, as you say. Meanwhile IBM and Microsoft sell their
> products at a fraction of the cost. I'm not a financial analyst but to
> me it seems a nasty position.
>
The price difference was true at one point (except you didn't get nearly the
same features as today in Sql Server - so it was worth a lot less), but I
don't see where the price is that much different any more, if you compare
(as one example) the Standard Edition of Oracle to the equivalent
(non-Enterprise) version of Sql Server.
For example we bought a copy of Sql Server 3 years ago for 5 users at $1,500
. That is the same price for the Standard Edition of Oracle today.
And, now Oracle has a new price for basically the standard edition of
$195/user. For more info, see URL
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/10/08/HNoraclesmbdb_1.html
>
> DG
Received on Tue Oct 28 2003 - 00:28:47 CST
