SQL Server Vs. Oracle

[RVMohan]

What are the advantages (performance,administration and features) of using SQL Server as back-end in client-server projects (front end is VB) when compared with Oracle

 

[Terpsfan]

SQL Server is considered to be a much less expensive and easier to maintain database than Oracle. Oracle is better suited for databases on the web. SQL Server integrates extremely well with Visual Basic. You use OLEDB and ADO to access the SQL database from Visual Basic. It's amazing you quickly you can create forms, etc to a SQL database. Plus SQL Server offers an excellent decision and support system with OLAP (Online Analytical Processing), where you can analyze data in several dimensions.

If you find this post helpful, please vote me as helpful.

 

[MikeJones]

From what I've heard and expeirenced....

Oracle = Expensive to buy
Expensive to Maintain (Oracle DBA's get Big money)
Expensive to develop on (Oracle programmers aren't
cheap either)
Very reliable, I've worked on Oracle DB's
that have continuous up times measured in
months..
Very scalable in terms of data and users

M$ = Cheaper than Oracle
Easier to develop on due to abundant development pool
Cheaper to maintain as eaiser.
A lot less reliable
A Lot harder to scale when going from a few users to a
few hundered


So one once explained it to me as Oracle being the Ferrari of DB's building very expensive things that were at the pinnicle of the area and a buet to have, if you could afford it / justify it.

Where as M$ were the Honda, Comfortable, plentiful, Cheap to fix and with the promise that it will get better...

 

[carpeliam]

only problem with the anology is, isn't the Honda Civic supposed to be the most reliable car or something? ) other than that... dead on. Liam Morley
imotic@hotmail.com
"light the deep, and bring silence to the world.
light the world, and bring depth to the silence."