Re: We need a database, but which one?

In article 9xK_at_dnsserv.go.dlr.de, RMCB_at_DLRVMS.GO.DLR.DE (Geoff Walters) writes:
>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

You mean the initial purchase cost is cheap. Is it robust enough to handle the volumes you have to deal with, what are maintenance costs and upgrading policies. What sort of professional help can you expect from the manufacturers.

>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

Well, what about features. I don't know, but I would suspect that Foxpro doesn't have database triggers, procedures and packages etc etc. Does it have declarative integrity and all the other good stuff Oracle has to offer.

>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

Can Foxpro seamlessly connect to the existing Oracle databases. Will you have to download/upload data?

>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

Existing experience inhouse is worth big, big bucks (marks). Also wouldn't it be possible to simply expand the licences you have and connect to existing databases using SQL*Net?

>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.

But think of tomorrow, not today. 486/50 /w 64MB will be entry level machines shortly. Should Oracle have developed for already obsolete 386's.

Regards,
David TvE

---
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
David Thornewill von Essen                      Business Systems Analyst
Motorola ASIC Division                            I don't speak for Mot.
Chandler, AZ-85224                                   fax: (602) 814-4451
email: ttg242_at_email.sps.mot.com                      tel: (602) 814-4395
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-