Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

From: Jim Kennedy <Jim_Kennedy_at_MedicaLogic.com>
Date: 1999/05/06
Message-ID: <HWfY2.71860$A6.35409180_at_news1.teleport.com>#1/1


How do people feel about adequate ? If you just had sex with someone and they said you were adequate how would you feel? I dare say I would not be boasting about my prowess. If they told someone else that my sexual performance was adequate I daresay that would not be a ringing endorsement. Jim

AJ wrote in message <7gn9in$jaq$1_at_news.ses.cio.eds.com>...
>You will probably get a different response to this based on the most
>recently/frequently used dbms of the responder. 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.
>SQL Server as a general rule also has lower support and hardware
>requirements. The biggest plus of Oracle is that it runs on unix as well
 as
>NT.
>
>For more detail search dejanews, there are several rants/raves for either
>product.
>
>Ling wrote in message ...
>>Hi all,
>>Our project team is looking into upsizing a VB/Access database to either
 MS
>>SQL Server/ Oracle on NT. We don't know what their main differences are
 and
>>which one we should use. Any information regarding this subject or any
>>recommendation will be very appreciated.
>>
>>Thanks in advance
>>
>>Ling
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Thu May 06 1999 - 00:00:00 CEST

Original text of this message