>Metin, here are some other organizations that picked SQL Server over Oracle:
>
>- BMW Egypt chose SQL Server over Oracle. Here's an exact quote from their I.T. director. “We saw Oracle as being expensive to license and support, without offering performance beyond what we could get with SQL Server.”
>
>- Australia’s CSR Limited (6th largest sugar producer in the world) moved from Oracle to SQL Server in 2007. They've reported a significant decrease in ownership costs and significant performance boosts on their 4 terabyte database.
>
>- Kimball International migrated a near 3 terabyte database from Oracle to SQL Server, and has reported cost reductions (mainly licensing) of about $500,000 per year, with reported performance increases of 30%
>
>Additionally....the largest producer of beer in Russia (Baltika Breweries) uses SQL Server for their 2 terabyte database.
>
>bwin (a global online sports betting company) uses SQL Server to support 100 Terabytes worth of data across many instances of SQL Server. They deal with over a million bets per day.
>
>Boston-based CareGroup HealthCare System uses SQL Server to manage 2 terabytes of patient data. We're talking health care - an area where Oracle historically has done very well.
>
>Finally, the world's second largest HMO (Clalit Health Services in Israel) uses SQL Server to manage 16 terabytes of data, including a 2.7 terabyte BI solution. They enjoy a 50% compression rate with SQL Server 2008 data compression. Once again, an industry where Oracle has historically done well.
>
>So - do you think you want to change your tune?

If that list of international heavyweights doesn't convince him I don't know what would ;-)