Re: Limitations of MSSQL Server Vs. Oracle OR simply otherwise li mitations in general - OT

From: Mladen Gogala <gogala_at_sbcglobal.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:52:39 +0000
Message-Id: <1101343959l.4017l.0l@medo.noip.com>

On 11/24/2004 07:22:03 PM, Niall Litchfield wrote:

> SQL 2005 isn't vapourware. It *is* late, but it is already in late
> beta. It will happen. It ought to take market share from Oracle.

It probably will byte deeply in the Oracle's market share because of =20 the MS main trump card: price. Oracle does offer quality when compared =20 to MS, but the price difference is getting too big, and Oracle will have to adjust. On the other side, Oracle's core strengths are its =20 portability (I am keenly waiting for the debut of MS SQL Server 200x on =20 RH ES or SLES. I believe it wan't be available before 3005) and the =20

quality. Oracle doesn't have to do much with the price to restore the =20
natural order of things. It will be enough to cut prices of Oracle SE =20
on Win2003 to 10% above SQL Server and MS can forget it. If they drop =20

even lower, somebody might think that their products are junk, and =20 there is that consent decree that they will be reluctant to break. =20 After all, the verdict of Thomas Penfield Jackson stood in the part =20 where MS was declared a monopoly. All they need is to try undercutting =20 another large competitor with a price war. MS is on the losing side in =20 this game. I don't see a way for them to win. No way in hell. And, as we can see with the Firefox, the old competitors can rise from =20 the dead and haunt them. This time, they'll need some garlic and a =20 wooden stake to finish off the OSS incarnation of their old Netscape =20 nemesis.

--=20
Mladen Gogala
Oracle DBA

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Received on Wed Nov 24 2004 - 18:48:53 CST