Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

AJ wrote:

> >1 - Oracle runs on more plateforms than Microsoft SQL Server
>
> And your point is? This is a concern only if considering a very large
>
> database. Or you just don't like the wintel conglomerate.
> Personnally, I
> try to base decisions on what's best for the customer (most
> cost-effective)
> not on my personal preferences.
>

There is one thing I am sure is thta the total cost (production+admin) is smaller with Netware Oracle rather than NT SQL Server. My company had statistics about that !!!

> >3 - Oracle had a greater part of the SQL C/S market than SQL Server,
> so
> >you will find more specialist on Oracle designing.
>
> There's also a shortage of qualified people and SQL Server has a
> *much*
> lower learning curve especially for developers that have done Access.
> I was
> able to pick it up with (initially) no real training. One of the
> advantages
> of mikeysoft is their consistency. Once you've been brainwashed it
> all
> looks the same...
>

Oracle did not give a licence when you don't need it, but that is systematically the case when you take a Pack in MS system...

> >4 - Larry Ellison had make a 1 million $ bet to anyone can
> demonstrate
> >that Oracle is under 100 time faster than SQL server
> >And the bet has not been paid yet !!!
>
> If you need a system that you can throw tens of millions of dollars
> at...go
> with a unix based dbms.
>

Unix(s) and Linux present many advantages : the comparative cost of admin in 50 to 80% less than NT !...My company had statistics about that too !!!

> >5 - the strategy of Microsoft is to make you a prisonner of thoses
> >systems, so that, when your data will be on a MS system, it will ever
>
> >coste a lot : to maintain version or to migrate... MS is a super,
> >maximized, and optimized making money machine and that's all !
> And that's different from any of the major companies because...
>
> You know, it's funny. All of these arguments seem to come down to
> 'less
> filling' vs 'tastes great' debate. Since there are no concrete
> numbers to
> back up either side (other than SQL Server is probably cheaper and
> Oracle is
> more scalable because it runs on unix), we end up pointing out holes
> in the
> other. The 'official' numbers are all cooked, all products present
> their
> systems in the most favorable light.
>
> For example, in the last week I've heard about 2 major problems with
> the
> most recent release of Oracle -- one a major security hole and the
> other a
> bug that causes C++ compilers to crash if there's a syntax error in
> the
> syntax. Does that make Oracle inherently bad? No, just proves that
> all
> software today is so complex that bugs are practically inevitable.
>
> Until I can convince our group to do a real comparison of DBMS's
> (Oracle,
> SQL Server, Ingres, Sybase, Teradata, etc) all I can say is that SQL
> Server
> is easier to administer and from what I've seen it's as stable as the
> other
> major databases. Of course my opinion and 50 cents will buy you a cup
> of
> coffee.
>
> AJ.

What did you think about the MS trial ? I remember the time when pro was saying "I don't take other product than Microsoft one's because I am sure they will be there in 10 years and I want to preserve my money"... And now they have to migrate erternally a pay for it from a version to another because in MS buildings technicians are properly incompetent... Example : SQL Server 6 did not know that year 2000 had a february 29 !!!!!!!

How can you work with a company that the standard process with the custumer is pay to have the product, pay to have the correction, pay to have a hotline, pay for the bugs we commited ???

In France the great majority of PC owners personnal or pro is begining to see the light, and the most important part of it want to migrate. Imagine that about 80% have Word install in the machine, but Word had so many bugs that it is impossible to work with, so they have to take another and pay...

FB Received on Thu May 06 1999 - 13:07:31 CDT