Re: Oracle Vs. SQL SERVER
Date: 27 Nov 1994 16:16:40 GMT
Message-ID: <3babd8$qvq_at_nlsu110.nl.oracle.com>
Raymond Everly (reverly_at_ucs01.cfr.usf.edu) wrote:
: In article <khosraf.2.00119998_at_sce.com>, khosraf_at_sce.com (Fereidoon Khosravi) says:
: >I am looking for any information you all can share comparing ORACLE and SQL
: >SERVER.
As I work for Oracle, I bet you know what my advice would be!
: SQL Server has a nice set of standard admin tools but similar things can
: bought for Oracle for a price
You really should have a look at Oracle Workgroup Server. This is a special package, which *DOES* include some nice Windows administration tools for startup/shutdown, users, sessions, objects space management, etc.
: SQL server is cheaper
Not true, prices of OWS and SQL Server were similar, but MS has increased their price.
: Yes ACCESS does work with Oracle 7 and other ODBC products but I think
Not true, OWS does include client and server SQL*Net and an ODBC driver.
: Oracle servers require roughly 1MB min per conection SQL server around 64KB
Not true,
: you are supposed to license SQL net and the ODBC driver for each client
: which I believe SQL server includes with the server license.
- you are comparing 'connections' (SQL Server) with 'users/logins' (Oracle Server). As Oracle7 does support the cursor mechanism, you never need more than one login per application. For SQL Server you often need 5-10 connections to simulate cursors.
- Oracle does not need 1Mb per user, but as with SQL Server it depends on the application.
Sandor Nieuwenhuijs
Oracle Netherlands
- These opinions (if any) are just mine. I do not represent Oracle ---
- Corporation in this Posting ---