Re: Bye Oracle.

If you use processor and not named user licensing, you will usually save many $...

(cost for 9i is @ 40K per processor )

"Chuck" <chuckh_at_softhome.net> wrote:

>
>"Karsten Farrell" <kfarrell_at_belgariad.com> wrote in message
>news:LNPC9.33$8o5.4324386_at_newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> NorwoodThree wrote:
>> > Our company is trying to phase out Oracle in favor of SQL Server due
>> > to licensing costs for our data warehouse.
>> >
>> > I dont want to cause a huge thread, but is there a link somewhere that
>> > explains the disadvantages to this? I dont know anything about SQL
>> > Server. I know there have been threads as to "Oracle vs. SQL Server"
>> > but it doesnt answer my question directly. I want to stick with
>> > Oracle.
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> Call your Oracle sales person. I'm sure they have *lots* of white papers
>> that will tell you why Oracle is better than SQL Server.
>>
>
>I don't think anyone here would argue that Oracle is the better database.
>The question is whether it's better enough to justify the higher price tag.
>Not long ago our company priced licensing on a new DB to support a web based
>app. 99.99% of the users would be internal. .01% would access it via the
>internet. The price for Oracle was over $1,000,000. Sql server was around
>$10,000 and DB2 was around $20,000. Oracle's pricing made it a no brainer.
>
Received on Wed Nov 20 2002 - 14:59:31 CST