RE: Limitations of MSSQL Server Vs. Oracle OR simply otherwise limitations in general - OT
- From: "MacGregor, Ian A." <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <gogala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <BoivinP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 07:32:04 -0800
Microsoft has begun to remove support for other databases other than SQL =
Server from some of its products such as Project Central. This is one =
way of worming their way into shops. Identity management is another =
example. Once this is established, the data needs to be shared with =
other databases. This is easier if the other databases are also SQL =
SERVER.
Unless one works in a Windows-free environment, it is nearly impossible =
to prevent the introduction of SQL Server. =20
Ian MacGregor
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mladen Gogala
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 4:30 AM
To: BoivinP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'chupit@xxxxxxxxx'; vivek_sharma@xxxxxxxxxxx; ORACLE-L
Subject: Re: Limitations of MSSQL Server Vs. Oracle OR simply otherwise =
limitations in general - OT
There was an article discussed recently on comp.databases.oracle.server
which can be used for a decent management presentation, for the PHB and =
=3D20
friends.
The article in question is full of gross factual inaccuracies, the most =
=3D20
flagrant being the statement on page 12 that PCTINCREASE cannot be
defined for rollback segments, so rollback segments cannot grow. The =
=3D20
fact that despite not knowing a squat about oracle, the authors =3D20
concluded that oracle looks much better then SQL server only shows
how bad SQL server really is. I made some comments on =3D20
comp.databases.oracle.server, Howard Rogers vivisected the article in =
=3D20
detail and the general conclusion is that the article is bad, but SQL =
=3D20
server is worse. I cannot fathom why do people expect the company that
has created such a peace of s....oftware as Windows to create a good
database software?
After the usual dose of rant about MicroS*t, the article is well =3D20
written and makes oracle look much better then MS-SQL Server. It =3D20
actually reveals the ugly truth: Oracle and SQL Server do not play in =
=3D20
the same league. You cannot compare little league teams to the Yanks =
=3D20
(if someone mentions things like the curse and some garments from NE, =
=3D20
I'll get seriously angry).
On 11/24/2004 07:04:50 AM, Boivin, Patrice J wrote:
> One thing comes to mind... SQL Server 2005 is not out yet, it's still
> in
> Developer Preview isn't it?
>=3D20
> Maybe they could compare it with 10g Release 2 or perhaps Oracle 11?
> Maybe
> that will be out at the same time as SQL Server 2005.
>=3D20
> Patrice.
>=3D20
>=3D20
>=3D20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edgar Chupit [mailto:chupit@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: November 23, 2004 2:00 PM
> To: vivek_sharma@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: ORACLE-L
> Subject: Re: Limitations of MSSQL Server Vs. Oracle OR simply
> otherwise
> limitations in general - OT
>=3D20
>=3D20
> Recently I've come across this link that could be an interesting
> comparison and couldn't resist from posting it to the list (although =
=3D20
> I
> must admit that I'm not fully agree with author):
>=3D20
> =
http://www.wisdomforce.com/dweb/resources/docs/MSSQL2005_ORACLE10g_compar=
=3D
e.p
> df
>=3D20
> Hope this will help.
>=3D20
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:36:17 +0530, VIVEK_SHARMA
> <vivek_sharma@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Folks
> >
> > Limitations of MSSQL Server Vs. Oracle OR simply otherwise General
> > limitations of MSSQL Server.
> >
> > Need to give a presentation to Management on the same=3D3D20
> >
> > Any Good Links, docs etc?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > --
> > //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
> >
>=3D20
>=3D20
> --
> Edgar
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>=3D20
>
--=3D20
Mladen Gogala
Oracle DBA
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
