"Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson_at_sqlserverfaq.com> wrote in message
news:dtrpo7$bkl$1$8302bc10_at_news.demon.co.uk...
> > What level is ANSI SQL compliance does Microsoft claim - can you provide
a
> > citation ?
>
> ANSI 92 - check Books Online.
What level of ANSI 92 or didn't you know there are different levels? That
is the version not the level. SS isn't completely ANSI 92 compliant at all
levels. (no one is)
Jim
>
> > Here's the published current salary costs of both sets of DBA's in the
UK
> > Oracle - http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/oracle.do
> > SQL Server - http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/sql%20server%20dba.do
> >
> > There shows that there is less than a 3-13% differential between the min
> > and max salary ranges. Hardly a lot higher at all.
> >
>
> Very clever Mark, but I think you really want to compare like for like, so
> you ought to compare Oracle DBA with SQL Server DBA (like for like) and
you
> get a more accurate result, if you compare 'oracle' with 'sql server' its
> even worse....
>
> DBA...
> Oracle Min/Max £40,073 £45,219
>
> SQL Server Min/Max £36,128 £40,846
>
>
> Just search on product...
> Oracle £39,363 £46,026
>
> SQL Server Min/Max £33,665 £38,797
>
>
> Thats a big difference!
>
> > http://www.theedison.com/research/gems/040401rdbmscmcs.pdf
>
> I wonder who has commissioned the report? Looking at the detailed tasks it
> starts to get a bit interesting and bias toward Oracle starts to be shown,
> for instance; the set up and seperate service pack installation - counted
as
> one and not broken down - mmmm.
>
> I await the next report with interested and will also look for more bias,
> perhaps I will download your trial and try it for myself and write up the
> results as a whitepaper of my own!
>
> Perhaps the savings the state are offset against the fact that SQL Server
> salaries are around 18-20% lower than that of Oracle - quoting your source
> too!
>
> --
> Tony Rogerson
> SQL Server MVP
> http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
>
>
> "Mark Townsend" <markbtownsend_at_comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4400F6C5.8080203_at_comcast.net...
> >
> >>
> >> What you mean - they use portable SQL as definied by the ANSI SQL
> >> standard, something Oracle doesn't do very well! Come on guys, catch
up!!
> >> Talk about MS locking people in - LOL!
> >
> > What level is ANSI SQL compliance does Microsoft claim - can you provide
a
> > citation ?
> >
> >> One thing you need to watch is staffing, costs for Oracle staff here in
> >> the UK are a lot higher than SQL Server ones, also, you tend to need
> >> more; also, the SQL Server professional has a more rounded experience
to
> >> the business, often trained in Business Intelligence.
> >
> > Here's the published current salary costs of both sets of DBA's in the
UK
> > Oracle - http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/oracle.do
> > SQL Server - http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/sql%20server%20dba.do
> >
> > There shows that there is less than a 3-13% differential between the min
> > and max salary ranges. Hardly a lot higher at all.
> >
> > There is no evidence to suggest that managing Oracle requires anymore
> > DBA's than managing SQL Server. Overall DBA counts within an
organization
> > are not comparable, as typically the Oracle DBA's are looking after more
> > mission critical systems, and/or larger Data Warehouses, than the SQL
> > Server counterparts. These systems also often have higher SLA
> > requirements, which can translate into more than one shift of DBAs.
> >
> > And there is evidence to suggest that managing Oracle is actually esaier
> > than managing SQL Server. See the Edison report that showed that Oracle
> > Database 10g requires 30% less DBA time, 20% less steps, and up to
$36,000
> > less per year to manage than SQLServer 2000
> >
> > http://www.theedison.com/research/gems/040401rdbmscmcs.pdf
> >
> > I believe that a new Edison report is due out soon comparing Oracle
> > Database 10g to SQLServer 2005. But if the last eweek review is anything
> > to go by, the difference may become even greater with the newest release
> > of SQL Server
> >
> > "However, by making management more complex, Microsoft has discarded the
> > one significant advantage it had over Oracle Database 10g and IBM's
> > DB2-ease of administration. This makes DB2 and Oracle Database 10g look
> > all the more attractive for their broader choice of development
> > frameworks, management interfaces, and server hardware and operating
> > systems."
> >
> > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1894609,00.asp
> >
> > Your last comment, which interesting enough is not the usual MS rhetoric
> > is purely subjective, and you have no evidence to back this statement up
> > at all.
>
>
Received on Sun Feb 26 2006 - 11:07:03 CST
