>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And you have a tendency to be very selective with what you deem as facts. Here is a link to an international study which shows, among other things, that:
>>>
>>>

>>>Key Results 
>>>Measure                                                          Microsoft           Oracle 
>>>Average number of databases per company           107                  87 
>>>Average number of users per database                  328                 716 
>>>Mission critical databases                                    66.1%             63.8% 
>>>Transaction-based databases                               55.7%             60.3% 
>>>Decision-support databases                                 44.3%             39.7% 
>>>Databases supported per DBA                             31.2                9.9 
>>>Users supported per DBA                                    6,784              5,567 
>>>Annual TCA per database                                   $2,847             $10,206 
>>>Annual TCA per database user                            $13.09             $18.15 
>>>

>>>
>>>So by these results to say that Oracle is definately the leader is disingenuous. The white paper also makes a few other startling statements
>>>
>>>1. The survey results reveal that overall, Microsoft SQL Server required significantly less effort to install and maintain, than Oracle Database.
>>>2. On average organizations had more Microsoft SQL Server production servers than Oracle Database
>>>3. The most interesting result was that Microsoft SQL Server was being used for a higher percentage of mission critical business applications.
>>>4. The study showed that Microsoft SQL Server consistently required less effort than Oracle Database for every administrative task measured, including system
>>> installation, upgrades, database design, tuning, problem diagnosis and resolution, security administration, capacity planning, backup and recovery, and reporting.
>>>
>>>Okay, it will be interesting to see how you spin this. Microsoft has been making advances towards Oracle for the last 10 years, and has been making inroads. This study shows that they are now statistically a dead heat with neither being a definite #1.
>>>
>>>I would recommend you get the facts before making wild assertions based on emotional responses to Kevin.
>>>
>>>Oh, btw, the link: http://www.alinean.com/PDFs/Alinean-MicrosoftAndOracleTCAStudy.pdf
>>
>>Some interesting stats, agreed. Let's just not forget how this conversation developed, though. Kevin said SQL Server is "eating Oracle's lunch." I said they are doing it from behind then because Oracle still has a dominant market share. Kevin challenged that statement, and we were off to the races.
>>
>>I never said SS has not made inroads. They are chipping away. How you interpret those numbers as showing they are in a "dead heat" with Oracle, I can't quite figure out. Market share, remember.
>
>I don't think the study had anything to do with market share - just TCO :
>"The majority of participants selected for the study, as a desired criteria, supported both Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle Databases within their enterprises"
>So the participants were chosen mainly because they used both systems......
>

Probably so. That doesn't mean the numbers have anything to do with the market share debate that was going on here. Just more three card monte from John and Kevin.