>Why would I spend money for Sybase when I already have SQL server
>and could get Oracle for free??
You probably wouldn't .. but for those who are looking for something better
than Access ... ;)
>>>Hi everyone.
>>>
>>>We're using SQL server 7.0 and it's working great. The DoD recently
>>>purch
Why would I spend money for Sybase when I already have SQL server
and could get Oracle for free??
Tom
At 6/21/00 09:04 AM, you wrote:
>At 01:18 PM 6/21/2000 +0200, you wrote:
> >Hi everyone.
> >
> >We're using SQL server 7.0 and it's working great. The DoD recently
> >purchases a site license
>
Free on Linux even. ;-)
-Original Message-
From: Judah McAuley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 12:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Oracle vs SQL server
At 01:18 PM 6/21/2000 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi everyone.
>
>We're using SQL server 7.0 an
At 01:18 PM 6/21/2000 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi everyone.
>
>We're using SQL server 7.0 and it's working great. The DoD recently
>purchases a site license
>for the entire DoD for Oracle. My question is should I move my SQL server
>DB to Oracle?
Just to be contrary, I'd put my vote in for Sybase. G
We have a standard application that was made for SQL-server 7 and which we
recently made available for Oracle as well.
We ran into a few problems, but most were due to ODBC-driver-problems (The
customer was running CF 4.5.1 Pro, so native drivers was out of the
question)
>From my mind:
We had to
Tom,
I have worked with both the databases and i think Sql server
is "much more easier to set up and to work with". Sql
server is much more flexible than oracle, Oracle might have some
advantages for large databases, but i guess the latest
Sql server version is equally powerful.
Joe
6 matches
Mail list logo
