Yup, definetly biased. The last I have in my note book is that NT/2000 cannot
support more than 4 processors without going into a cluster which adds BIG $$$
to the cost. Also adds $$$ to Sql*Servers costs boy does it add to DB2!!
Dick Goulet
Reply
ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: Oracle Licensing vs. The Others
-This probably pales when compared to mainframe maintenance fees.
And don't forget that mainframes also rent the OS for a hefty fee!!
Dave
-Original Message-
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 10:25 AM
To: Multiple
Our management has started asking questions about how Oracle's licensing costs
compare to other database vendors. Specifically, DB2 and Sql Server. I think I am
pretty well armed with the features arguments, at least for Oracle vs. Sql Server,
but I really have no clue about licensing and
Re the 22% annual support cost. This is apparently not unusually high.
We were quote a 22% for an application last week. This probably
pales when compared to mainframe maintenance fees.
Jared
On Friday 22 February 2002 06:03, Jay Hostetter wrote:
Our management has started asking
-This probably pales when compared to mainframe maintenance fees.
And don't forget that mainframes also rent the OS for a hefty fee!!
Dave
-Original Message-
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 10:25 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Re the 22% annual support cost. This is
Jay - Try this URL:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/pricecomparison.asp
naturally it is entirely biased in Microsoft's favor and I don't see where
it mentions that under Oracle's pricing model, upgrades are included, but
not with Microsoft. Oracle and IBM probably have equivalent
