| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: SQL server Vs Oracle
Frédéric BROUARD wrote in message <3731D673.ACEBF5DD_at_simog.com>...
>Arvin Meyer wrote:
>
>> Frédéric BROUARD wrote in message <3731696B.273E4D36_at_simog.com>...
>>
>> >1 - Oracle runs on more plateforms than Microsoft SQL Server
>>
>> Who cares? NT is the platform of choice for the lowest operating cost.
>
>I must be stupid but I have heard that Linux cost was zéro !
The cost of an operating system has little to do with the cost of the the software itself. Labor is the main cost of an operating system. Training curves, configuration times, hardware compatability, support costs, etc. make NT orders of magnitude lower in cost than Linux.
>> >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 !!!
>
>> And lost that bet, he quietly withdrew it from the website when he saw
>> he
>> was going to lose. SQL-Server beat Oracle by 157% in one of the tests,
>> and
>> lost by 28% the other.
>
>Sure ??? read the previous answer !!!
Yes I'm sure.
Maybe I haven't received the "previous" answer here yet, I don't know. But a search of Oracle's site 5 minutes ago, yielded nothing on this bet when I entered the crtiteria "$1 Million". I got 2 hits, neither of which mentioned $1 Million.
As reported in WinInfo, Oracle's challenge was quietly pulled February 22, 1999. Oracle may be faster in some instances, and slower in others. Unless YOUR company's database is tested, it doesn't matter what the benchmarks read. But SQL-Server will ALWAYS provide a more cost-effective solution. I'm not saying that SQL-Server is the answer for every problem, but it is on most of them. Each tool has its place.
 |
 |