Re: how to compare Oracle vs SQL-Server?

I agree, you've got to be an imbecile to base your choice off of those product feature checklists. These are complex products and their quality and functionality can't be simplified into a yes or no. I'm hesitant to say which is better without knowing your application, but can say with confidence that Oracle is a much better database system, especially for mid to enterprise level uses. I've worked with Oracle 7.2 and SQL Server 6.0 and SQL Server has poor architecture that puts limits on what and how efficiently you can do things. Oracle is a bit more expensive than SQL Server, but its capabilities and grace (for lack of a better word) make it worth it, especially when you are running important applications. Think of how much money your company might lose when a critical application goes down.

>SqlServer

 isn't a bad product - but like most everything else they produce it's
>always playing catchup to better, more mature products - and only does as well
>as it does because it's from microsoft and not because of any inherent
>capabilities.
>And, as with everything else they produce, they seem more concerned with those
>reviewer checkboxes than really improving the product. They also oversell the
>product - sqlServer is okay for a small networked environment. It really isn't
>very fast compared to the competition and can't really scale to the large end.
>(Where as I've run DB2 on everything from a single OS/2 workstation to MVS
>systems with 10k users, for example) - But microsoft pushes it (along with NT)
>as the end all and be all of databases.
>But what can you expect from a company that spends 20-40% of their revenue on
>advertising? We live in the age of management by magazine.
Received on Thu Aug 22 1996 - 00:00:00 CEST