|
Doug,Joe I personally found Oracle 8 a pain to use--it has a rather primative SQL*Net GUI-its soft of like a old greyscale terminal emulator.SQL Server 7/2000 has the Enterprise Manager which is much more to my liking .A lot of Oracle developers use Toad a third party product to work around Oracles lack of bells and whistles. Another big advantage I found is DTS (Data transformation services)-Oracle has got nothing like DTS.It lets you for example inport a text file-do some serious manipulation of it and then you can export it to the db of your choice ie Oracle,DB2--pretty cool huh-I hav eeven seen some DTS related posts on the midrange list. > Its aboubt as good as DB2/400 but is far cheaper and scales nicely at a fraction of > the cost." DB2/400 is built into the OS;SQL Server only runs on NT/2000 Server -theres got to be advantages to build the database around the OS. You said SQL Server 2000 Enterprise costs 20k --One proccessor Unlimited Clients costs 18k. However you can do it cheaper-- and you can pick it up from from Discount Business Software for approx 3.5k http://www.ebaystores.com/id=4347834 Of course you have to add the cost of 2000 Server(Windows 2000 Advanced Server 25 Clients ---$1395 ) and the hardware say 2k per Server. We are looking just shy of 7K all up per box--What does 7K buy you in a used or new i series. Ebay Stores is also really good to get Intel based Servers-new boxed with warantry-there is usually a good supply of IBM Servers. My guess is the latest AS/400 boxs that can compete would cost a fortune in comparison.Also as I said before SQL Server/VB Developers are cheaper than Java Developers so you get a saving in development costs. My own feeling here is that the small client would prefer cheaper options like I have described here. Dave > "As a general rule from now on I would only recomend SQL2000 Enterprise > for any new applications-It beats Oracle hands down,has all the bells and > whistles management tools/dev enviroment that Oracle has not got yet. Its > aboubt as good as DB2/400 but is far cheaper and scales nicely at a fraction of > the cost." > > Excuse me if I fail to see the credibility in your position, based on your posts > thus far. Please try again with verifiable substantiation to your claims. > > Doug > > _______________________________________________ > This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list > To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l > or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives > at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l. >
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.