Re: Pro's & Con's on Oracle & SQL Svr?

Indeed

I am reminded of the aberdeen group study in 1997 which concluded in part that oracle was not cost effective vs sql server because oracle needed 40 DBA's at 90K a time whereas sql server could be looked after by sys admins in their 'off time' and therefore had zero cost. I daresay it is still referenced on the ms sql server site.
Marketing = BS

--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
"Neil Pike" <100577.553_at_compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:VA.00000f37.0a140cfb_at_compuserve.com...


> Wayne,

>

>  > Agree and disagree... I agree because of all the conditions you say

 Oracle


> > puts on the tests; but I disaagreee becaus eof these reasons:  Oracle

 uses


> > only Oracle within its corporate systems; I work with Oracle every day

 and


> > know first hand how good it is; and the comparison states three times

> > faster, not simply "faster".  I think if Oracle tunes the DB and the

 results


> > are a DB that is thrice as fast, then it's still a good deal.

>

>   So if Oracle came in to look at a $100,000 (hardware and software) SQL

 Server


> system and made it 3 times faster by "selling" you $250,000 of consulting,

> $100,000 of Oracle licenses and $1,000,000 of hardware then that would be

 a


> good deal?  By my thinking you'd have just spent 13.5 times the money for

 a


> 3-fold gain in performance.

>

>   I'd like to know if anyone actually took up this marketing challenge - I

> can't believe anyone would be stupid enough.....

>

>   Not that there's anything wrong with the Oracle product, it's just the

 Oracle


> marketing dept that seems to have some very dubious policies.

>

>  Neil Pike MVP/MCSE.  Protech Computing Ltd

>  Reply here - no email

>  SQL FAQ (484 entries) see

>  http://forumsb.compuserve.com/gvforums/UK/default.asp?SRV=MSDevApps

>  (faqxxx.zip in lib 7)

>  or www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?DepartmentID=800

>  or www.sqlserverfaq.com

>  or www.mssqlserver.com/faq

>