Xref: alice comp.databases:36189 comp.databases.ms-access:273874 comp.databases.ms-sqlserver:37353 comp.databases.oracle.server:48271
Path: alice!news-feed.fnsi.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nuq-peer.news.verio.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!dfw.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!in2.uu.net!iafrica.com!feeder.is.co.za!hermes.is.co.za!not-for-mail
From: "Billy Verreynne" <vslabs@onwe.co.za>
Newsgroups: comp.databases,comp.databases.ms-access,comp.databases.ms-sqlserver,comp.databases.oracle.server,microsoft.public.sqlserver.server,microsoft.public.vb.database
Subject: Re: SQL server Vs Oracle
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 14:32:42 +0200
Organization: An Internet Solution Customer
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <7gpdsi$r74$1@hermes.is.co.za>
References: <OKpS7gkl#GA.52@cpmsnbbsa05> <7gn9in$jaq$1@news.ses.cio.eds.com>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4

AJ wrote in message <7gn9in$jaq$1@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