Re: Justifying the Cost

Steve,

"I'd find it pretty hard to believe if anyone on this list would ever offer that one, which I guess makes it all the more credible."

I like that, and you are right. The truth is, for all but the most demanding and mission critical (by that I'm talking lives depending on it, people's bank accts, etc), SQL Server will serve you well. Especially SQL Server 2000. You can get more information from here: http://databases.about.com/library/weekly/aa101400a.htm . I personally believe Oracle still beats SQL Server in some aspects, but the cost savings and the fact that SQL most likely can handle your App is a strong mitigating factor.

For Application Servers, you don't need to limit yourself. With ODBC, you should be able to use any App server you want - whether IIS or Java based...

Good luck.
Manny.

"Steve Evans" <steve.evans_at_rwcwarranty.com> wrote in message news:tse043i3othi3c_at_corp.supernews.com...
> "Ban Spam" <ban-spam_at_operamail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns91382F572924FSunnySD_at_24.0.3.73...
> > You get what you pay for it.
> > To lower your cost to ZERO,
> > a couple of PD/Freeware DBs exist.
>
> Sorry, I didn't give any specifics. I was talking about other solutions
for
> a front end and business logic for Oracle (or SQL Server) that might lower
> the cost. I have to present this to the Pres. and VP so I need something
> objective. I'm thinking in terms of multiple platforms and scalability
but
> I don't have hard numbers. Like how big a box can you throw SQL Server
onto
> and how many users will that support for an application with 3G+ of data
in
> 164 tables, 177 screens and 190 reports? How much faster would Oracle run
> that same app on the same hardware. And obviously, Oracle doesn't have a
> hardware limitation since it will run on a mainframe. Or maybe SQL Server
> and VB would be just fine for that app. I'd find it pretty hard to
believe
> if anyone on this list would ever offer that one, which I guess makes it
all
> the more credible.
>
> Anxiously awaiting comments,
>
> ...Steve
>
>
Received on Mon Oct 15 2001 - 20:37:19 CDT