>It seems like there have been predictions of it tilting the other way for some time. Maybe it will eventually happen, who knows. It hasn't happened yet. This is overall market share, not anecdotal case studies.
>
>http://www.oracle.com/us/products/database/number-one-database-069037.html
>
>PS -- The New Yorker? Hardly. It is not a magazine for gearheads.
>
>You're right, NY is not a magazine for gearheads....not much better for GWT science either. <s>
>
>On the topic of SQL Server and Oracle:
>
>1) That link you provided is a quintessential example of how to distort reality with statistics. The market share numbers reported by Gartner don't capture transitions in the last 18-24 months, or instances where MIcrosoft was chosen over Oracle in the vendor selection process. This, along with any lag on sales reporting numbers or royalty payments, are factors in reading the site link you posted.
>
>(Given that you're a former Fox guy, I'm surprised you don't have a healthy suspicion of Gartner to begin with - they've pulled plenty of Svengali-like tactics in the past).
>
>2) There are organizations that use Oracle for their OLTP systems because of the heavy investment - but have also decided to use SQL Server for the Business Intelligence offerings. Reason? Because MS tools provided more value. I've personally worked with 2 of them over the last 24 months, and I know others who have seen the same thing.
>
>3) I don't deny that Oracle has the biggest piece of the pie. But as I said, SQL Server is now popping up in areas where Oracle enjoyed a big advantage. Recently a government/army project in the Mid-Atlantic gave Oracle the boot and decided to go with SQL Server instead. The department of defense, the CDC, and national research projects involving AIDS and genetic engineering have been moving from Oracle to SQL Server (I worked on one in 2008).
>
>4) You may find these links interesting. The first one below is particularly important, where one of the largest manufacturers in Turkey gave Oracle the boot: (these are all verifiable)
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=4000002932
>http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?casestudyid=4000007423
>http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?casestudyid=4000007013
>http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?casestudyid=4000007073
>
>Most important, Microsoft is working with hardware vendors on Parallel Data Warehouse appliances - even Gartner acknowledged in 2008 when Microsoft starting building PDW (under the name "Madison") that PDW would bolster MS' position. MS' decision to strengthen the DW engine in SQL Server and to start building "appliances", coupled with the integration with SharePoint in 2010, has put them in a pretty nice position that Oracle will have difficulty matching.

It really is pointless to debate you, isn't it? You would gnaw your own arm off before ever conceding a point. When presented with direct, unambiguous numbers you either trash the source or cite some anecdote to try to make a larger point. The Turkish manufacturing company is a perfect example. Gosh, one Turkish company changes sides, I guess SQL Server must be in the lead! Good lord.

You also have a tendency to over magnify your personal experiences. Example: Business Intelligence and SharePoint. I know a key part of your current career is based on your expertise in these Microsoft technologies. I would also bet real money that they are not even on the radar in most database shops. SQL Server is a nice product which has a solid #3 spot in the market. If you want to deny that Oracle continues to be the market leader, you need to cite some better numbers. Some real numbers. Not anecdotes, not case studies of individual shops, not word sorcery of the "Here's what I think may be happening" variety.

I probably just wasted more of my time by posting beyond the first sentence ;-(