Oracle vs MS-SQL

[sli_gryn]

Oracle = enterprise strength production (with the associated price tag)
MS SQL = small to medium enterprise (and appropriate price tag)

if you're looking at business critical, rock solid platform, go Oracle, if only for the sake that you can run it on a platform that you don't have to keep running windows update on just to mask/patch the bugs all the time.

(and if you don't have any dough, look at postgres or mysql, but that's another tread )

[Rantor]

Platform independence is deffo a big plus, the ability to run it on a Windows Box or a zSeries to a Linux box

I switch between them as the both undepin my mealticket.

Just had a very unpleasent time with 10g (10.0.2.3 IIRC) that had a howlingly awful memory management bug in a dll. Exploding servers, memory dumps, clients weeping - I quite enjoyed it!

[Diver]

Oracle = enterprise strength production (with the associated price tag)
MS SQL = small to medium enterprise (and appropriate price tag)

if you're looking at business critical, rock solid platform, go Oracle, if only for the sake that you can run it on a platform that you don't have to keep running windows update on just to mask/patch the bugs all the time.

(and if you don't have any dough, look at postgres or mysql, but that's another tread )

Oracle is where the big clients and the big bucks are.
I deal with the small to medium and you can take my word for it, general upkeep on MS based systems is extremely labor intensive, and being small to medium means that the fee's are too.
There is an old addage: anybody can be busy, being busy and making money is what counts.
MS SQL will put bread on the table for you, but if you want butter, Oracle.

[richard-af]

Oracle Vs. MS-SQL

Oracle is the better of the two, here's why:

1. It runs on most significant platforms; MS-SQL runs on Windows, only.
2. Its architecture is, quite simply, better. Download the Oracle Concepts guide from oracle.com and compare Oracle's technology to MS-SQL's... no contest.

As for price, Oracle may be initially dearer, but quality always is.

BTW: If you want to get into contracting with either, I advise going for Oracle. By being, essentially, platform-independent, it is better protected from being "smashed" by the next Linux/Mac/whatever that will, undoubtedly, come along one day. Which all means you'd have a more secure future with Oracle.

[Spacecadet]

And, FWIW, how good can SQL Server be when all you have to do to create a database is right click --> create database. FFS.

Why should it be any more difficult than it needs to be?
If the installation has been carried out properly then the correct date file directories and database collations will be applied automatically. Any tables, stored procedures, functions that you want to exist in all databases can be created straight away and you can get on with the important task of making the database do some work.
The purpose of a database is to manage data, not to give gainful employment to DBA's and developers.

In most cases a SQL Server system will be cheaper, quicker to set up, cheaper to maintain and easier to administer.

If you actually need massive amounts of guaranteed uptime, then get informix. I spent 10 months working on one system and not even so much as performance drop from a crap query and it was running 24/7 for the whole time without reboots