--
"Niall Litchfield" <n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk> wrote in message
news:3f9e42ce$0$250$ed9e5944_at_reading.news.pipex.net...
> "Burt Peltier" <burttemp1ReMoVeThIs_at_bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:x1onb.55753$h47.51947_at_bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> > 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
>
> Std Edition one is IMO exactly the right price for Std Edition. I really,
> really hate the idea of running any database - especially one aimed at
> running a small business or large corporate workgroup on a single
processor
> machine. Still it has been at least 2 years since Larry announced new
> pricing so we are about due a new pricing policy for all the products.
>
If you really,really hate the idea of running any database on a single
processor, then just get the Standard Edition at around $300/User .
Either one runs on Linux and also saves a bunch of money by not having to
buy Windows too.
Sql server + Windows vs. Oracle + Linux ... which is cheaper ? Sounds like
M$ is the expensive one now.
>
> --
> Niall Litchfield
> Oracle DBA
> Audit Commission Uk
>
>
Received on Tue Oct 28 2003 - 05:17:41 CST
