We need a database, but which one?

From: Geoff Walters <RMCB_at_DLRVMS.GO.DLR.DE>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 12:01:41 GMT
Message-ID: <CL0C2u.9xK_at_dnsserv.go.dlr.de>


Hi,
  I'm currently working at a large government research establishment in Southern Germany, and we have decided to install a database system on one of our PC networks. The main question for use is "Which one?"   We have narrowed the choice down to two: Oracle and Foxpro. The reason why we are considering Foxpro is because its cheap! In fact it was given to us as an extra when we installed Windows on the network. The new database will be initially limited to 20 users and we will therefore have to buy a multiuser license. In the case of Foxpro we're talking about DM 5000.- and for Oracle its about 7 time this (including s/w). On the face of things it's obvious to choose Foxpro, but we already have databases installed on two large VAX VMS clusters and on a single PC, and in all three cases we choose Oracle. It would therefore be nice to stay with Oracle and have a single inhouse DB standard. We have programmed (with Pro*C) a number of utilities (some of which are quite complex) for the single PC and we could port these to the PC network with little effort. If we install Foxpro then we would have to rewrite sections of code using the new DB library routines with Visual C++ v1.5 .   Recent discussion on this list has mentioned the minimum requirements needed for running Forms 4 on a PC, and if I have understood this correctly a 386/33 /w 4MB is needed to run a Forms application, and a 486/50 /w 64MB to develope them. These, as others have pointed out, are extremely high, and if we have to upgrade 20 machines (all will be used for development) then this really is the point at which Oracle is no longer interesting for us.
  I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who wishes to comment on our decision, and especially interested in more reasons to justify why we should pay out such large sums for Oracle.

Thanks,
  Geoff Received on Thu Feb 10 1994 - 13:01:41 CET

Original text of this message