product comparisons

I've been told that Oracle is a better choice than MSSQL for really large
data sets and/or serious security concerns. But that was told to me by
Oracle people.
Without trying to start a war, can anyone give in a nutshell the relative
merits of the two products?Hi
Ask them about the 70 security patches that Oracle just released a few ws
ago. That was the quarterly security release. Microsoft did not have so many
patches for all their products in the last 3 months, let alone SQL Server
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Paul Pedersen" <no-reply@.swen.com> wrote in message
news:uwnIsH$XFHA.2684@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I've been told that Oracle is a better choice than MSSQL for really large
> data sets and/or serious security concerns. But that was told to me by
> Oracle people.
> Without trying to start a war, can anyone give in a nutshell the relative
> merits of the two products?
>
>|||See if this helps:
SQL Server 2000 vs Oracle 9i
http://www.mssqlcity.com/Articles/C...r_vs_oracle.htm
AMB
"Paul Pedersen" wrote:

> I've been told that Oracle is a better choice than MSSQL for really large
> data sets and/or serious security concerns. But that was told to me by
> Oracle people.
> Without trying to start a war, can anyone give in a nutshell the relative
> merits of the two products?
>
>
>|||I'm not sure I agree with these two blanket statements.
I would say they are both great products.
ask them specifically WHY they say that.
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon|||Both Oracle and SQL Server are highly capable enterprise-scale databases but
the truth is that almost no-one buys databases anyway. Businesses buy
solutions that include a database - either as part of an application or as
the platform for a development project. Look at the costs and ROI of the
proposition as a whole and don't get distracted by silly feature lists and
vague claims from the salespeople.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||'Silly feature lists'?
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:K9qdnaPjFt-X7w_fRVn-3w@.giganews.com...
> Both Oracle and SQL Server are highly capable enterprise-scale databases
> but the truth is that almost no-one buys databases anyway. Businesses buy
> solutions that include a database - either as part of an application or as
> the platform for a development project. Look at the costs and ROI of the
> proposition as a whole and don't get distracted by silly feature lists and
> vague claims from the salespeople.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>|||Adding to Mike's thread, some of the Oracle guys(Developers/DBA) claim that
Oracle is better for reasons other than
the product itself. For them it seems to be better because Oracle
professionals command a higher Hourly rate than
SQLServer :) So, it depends on who you ask.
Also, note that even when technical people say that Oracle is better than
SQLServer, they are implicitly trying to compare
64-bit Oracle with 32-bit SQLServer. Ofcourse, with the advent of 64-bit
CPUs, 64-bit OSs and 64-bit SQLServer they
will not be able to make such statements anymore.
Thanks,
Gopi
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:ekFDvM$XFHA.4000@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Ask them about the 70 security patches that Oracle just released a few
> ws ago. That was the quarterly security release. Microsoft did not have
> so many patches for all their products in the last 3 months, let alone SQL
> Server
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Paul Pedersen" <no-reply@.swen.com> wrote in message
> news:uwnIsH$XFHA.2684@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>|||"rgn" <gopinathr@.healthasyst.com> wrote in message
news:u$67U7CYFHA.612@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Adding to Mike's thread, some of the Oracle guys(Developers/DBA) claim
> that Oracle is better for reasons other than
> the product itself. For them it seems to be better because Oracle
> professionals command a higher Hourly rate than
> SQLServer :)
Damn, that's a good reason!|||Thanks to all for your responses.
"Paul Pedersen" <no-reply@.swen.com> wrote in message
news:uwnIsH$XFHA.2684@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I've been told that Oracle is a better choice than MSSQL for really large
> data sets and/or serious security concerns. But that was told to me by
> Oracle people.
> Without trying to start a war, can anyone give in a nutshell the relative
> merits of the two products?
>
>|||One told me that it's because Oracle runs on Unix, and that Unix is more
stable than Windows for 24/7 operation. Anyone want to comment on that?
"pdxJaxon" <GregoryAJackson@.Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OYpnDO$XFHA.3488@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I'm not sure I agree with these two blanket statements.
> I would say they are both great products.
> ask them specifically WHY they say that.
>
> Greg Jackson
> PDX, Oregon
>sql