Re: licensing $$ comparison to SQLServer?

I would also, it's always better to argue from a position of strength and knowledge.

Thanks.

"Mike Ault" <mikerault_at_earthlink.net> wrote in message news:37fab3ab.0210030645.5c6b6b1e_at_posting.google.com...
> I would like to log a "me too" as far as the spread sheet...
>
> Mike
> "Niall Litchfield" <n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk> wrote in message
news:<3d9aaf42$0$8509$ed9e5944_at_reading.news.pipex.net>...
> > "Glen A Stromquist" <glen_stromquist_at_nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:9x4l9.7542$bj5.460125_at_news2.telusplanet.net...
> > > I sent you the spreadsheet Daniel - let me know if you dont receive
it.
> > FYI
> > > in the end, with our "named user credits", if we were to go 100%
oracle at
> > > our site we are about $40k ahead becuase of MS's charger per server
> > > license. However without the credit the SS are definatly in SQL
servers
> > > favor, as you will see in the model. This looks at cost only, not any
> > > performance, reliability or other issues.
> >
> > I too wouldn't mind a copy of the spreadsheet if possible.
> >
> > The only thing I think has been missing from the discussion is that both
> > Oracle and MSSQL are available on a per-processor license basis as well.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Niall Litchfield
> > Oracle DBA
> > Audit Commission UK
> > *****************************************
> > Please include version and platform
> > and SQL where applicable
> > It makes life easier and increases the
> > likelihood of a good answer
> >
> > ******************************************
Received on Fri Oct 04 2002 - 11:59:39 CDT