Re: Oracle vs Microsoft SQL Server

Donne You wrote:
>
> In article <33A81839.41E2_at_panther.gsu.edu> Min Zhu <gs01mmz_at_panther.gsu.edu> writes:
> >We are selecting a database for our new project, the candidate for our
> >database is Oracle or Microsoft SQL Server. Our design team are like to
> >use Oracle, but some of our clients want us to use Microsoft SQL Server.
> >Is there anyone can give me comparison between these two database,
> >especial the futures Oracle has and Microsoft don't. Any inputs are
> >welcome, please send me via e-mail, my e-mail address is
> >gs01mmz_at_panther.gsu.edu. Thank you very much.
>
> if you plan to run your database on UNIX, then go with Oracle. if
> you plan to use NT and this system is going to be short lived,
> Oracle might be a good choice as well. but if the system will exist
> for 10 years or more and NT is your platform, your only choice is
> NT SQL Server. you have to look at the long term benefits.

This guy's crystal ball assumes SQL server will be the only database on NT. I think SQL server is going
to have a tough time getting around Oracle and DB2/NT which is also very good now.

I am not sure I can agree with this. Oracle Workgroup Server for NT offers much more functionality
and features as compared to SQL server. It costs $300 per concurrent user. It makes sense to go
with the workgroup server if you are not planning to use parallel server. If you look at Microsoft's
new "enterprise" licensing scheme, SQL server will cost more than $300/user.

So, would you not have Oracle on NT,which is same cost as SQL server, much better product, scalable,
comes from Oracle who know databases and are pledged to "open systems".

Also, if Object-relational databases become popular, Oracle is years ahead of SQL server.

Raman Batra, Oracle DBA Received on Mon Jun 23 1997 - 00:00:00 CDT