Re: Oracle licence question

From: Mark Townsend <markbtownsend_at_comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:09:11 -0800
Message-ID: <4400F1A7.3090701@comcast.net>

Tony Rogerson wrote:

>>Sorry this is pure nonsense. I've yet to see a single example, in recent
>>years, of Oracle being more expensive than SQL Server. In fact I think
>>the exact opposite is true.
>>

>
>
> I've searched for a comparison of features between SQL Server 2005
> (Workgroup, Standard, Enterprise) and Oracle Standard and I don't seem to be
> able to find it - can you supply a URL for us to go visit.

eweek did a comparison of the two (albeit Enterprise Editions) just recently

SQLServer - http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1894609,00.asp Oracle - http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1618793,00.asp

"However, by making management more complex, Microsoft has discarded the one significant advantage it had over Oracle Database 10g and IBM's DB2—ease of administration. This makes DB2 and Oracle Database 10g look all the more attractive for their broader choice of development frameworks, management interfaces, and server hardware and operating systems."

This doc identifies the differences between the Oracle Standard and Enterprise Editions -
http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/database/oracle10g/pdf/twp_general_10gdb_product_family.pdf

>
> It would appear for £2,000 per physical processor (that means you pay for
> one even though its dual core) for the workgoup edition more than meets most
> company needs, you also have a free hot standby via database mirroring, log
> shipping or clustering (in workgroup edition), I can't seem to work out the
> Oracle price but for a 2 proc machine (dual core for instance) it starts to
> get silly.

Database mirroring isn't shipping yet, right ?

The price for Oracle Standard Edition One on a dual core machine is $4995 US or 2902 GBP.

>
> I doubt you'll reply with facts, more like a rant - but its worth a try.
>
Received on Sat Feb 25 2006 - 18:09:11 CST