Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

Hi,

I don't think Ron Soukup was part of the team that has wrote W95.

Furthermore, if I let a wizard writing a form for me, that doesn't mean I consider the job is finished at that point. Same for database management.

I don't see any real fact in your argumentation. If I can agree on some analysts at Gartner Group, I won't generalize.

You just ask us to believe you on your word when you said "it is it, period". Well, I don't, period.

Vanderghast, Access MPV.

Billy Verreynne <vslabs_at_onwe.co.za> wrote in message news:7gpdsi$r74$1_at_hermes.is.co.za...
> AJ wrote in message <7gn9in$jaq$1_at_news.ses.cio.eds.com>...
>
> >Having said that (and yes, I am currently using SQL Server),
> >for most applications SQL Server is lower cost (Oracle is 3
> >to 12 times more expensive according the a recent study by
> >the Gartner Group) and adequate for everything but very large databases.
>
> Seeing that we are qouting market research and stats here - Oracle is
> showing a 42% increase in growth over the 17% increase in growth of
> SQL-Server for the last year according to an IT newspaper I read a few
> months ago. And these figures are for Windows-NT!!
>
> But then most marketing stats are bull and I some of the biggest crap I
 ever
> read came from the Gartner Group.
>
> SQL-Server may be adequate for everything but very large databases (though
 I
> have strong doubts about this statement) - but the emphasis here is
> on -adequate-. Not good. Not ideal. Not robust. Not mature. Not scalable.
> Not flexible. Not powerful. Adequate.
>
> >SQL Server as a general rule also has lower support and hardware
> >requirements.
>
> The reason for lower levels of support is because SQL-Server attempts to
> automate many of the functions a DBA usually performs. For a small
 database,
> SQL-Server's attempt at playing the role of a DBA works. On larger
> databases - well I rather have a real DBA doing the administration of a
> database containing critical data than to trust the people who designed
 and
> wrote Windows'95 to play software DBA for me.
>
> As for hardware requirements. I disagree. Oracle's hardware footprint is
> related to what you are trying to do with it. And this does not
 necessarily
> involve data volume as complexity also plays a critical role.
>
> >The biggest plus of Oracle is that it runs on unix as well as
> >NT.
>
> IMHO the biggest plus of Oracle is that IT IS SIMPLY BETTER THAN
 SQL-SERVER.
> Period.
>
> There - I said it. I feel better already. Please flame away. :-)
>
> If cost is an issue and you simply need something better to replace an
> Access database, then by all means go for SQL-Server. Or even Interbase (I
> think it's even cheaper than SQL-Server with an even smaller software
> footprint). But if you are getting you feet wet with client-server
> architecture and a growing database and expanding user requirements...
 Think
> twice before simply buying into Microsoft's SQL-Server strategy as that
 will
> tie you to Microsoft's closed systems strategy.
>
> regards,
> Billy
>
>
>
Received on Thu May 06 1999 - 00:00:00 CEST