Well, it's PR from the MS Marketing Dept. What'd you expect? Bad news? :)

Cutting through the hyperbole, they are saying that they may eventually recapture the database market that Oracle owns for the NT and W2K servers. They are not saying that they are making a dent in Oracle's stonghold, the *nix server market. And, while they may be exhibiting 35% growth on their own NT and W2K boxes, recapturing some of Oracle's intrusions, they don't mention that Linux is making considerable gains on both the Unix and the WinXX server market. Of course, past performance is no guarantee of future gains, IOW, YMMV. :)


A while back Oracle begin a policy of hooking their license fees to the CPU speed of the servers, causing a rebellion that MS took advantage of. Oracle reversed themselves so, that time is past. (It is amazing how greed does companies in, but they can't see it because the $$ blinds them!) The big problem MS will have is in server performance --- for larger databases Oracle can run on one SMP box, with the data spread accross several HDs. MS needs a server farm to lighten the load of individual SMP boxes, in order to increase overall stability. This adds to the hardware and licensing costs.

I notice that their 'calculator' simple takes 75% of the Oracle price as the SQL Server price. That is not a technical feature that would take the competition any length of time to duplicate. Looks like the price wars are getting hotter. :) So, none of this discussion is relevant anymore. When the dust settles we'll see who has the biggest market share. The DOJ thing, and Microsoft's own balance sheet requirements may play a significant role. MS is not impervious to $$ induced blindness. If the registration wizard and licensing fees become too burdensome folks will respond.
JLK
PS. We run Oracle 8i on a W2K server, but we haven't begun to stress it yet. If either tool doesn't work out, or becomes too expensive, we always have that $30 solution setting on the shelves, waiting patiently. :)

>Hi
>
>I thought this article was very direct from MS - they seem to be implying that Oracle is a product in trouble.
>
>Is this just general chit-chat, or does anyone think it is fair comment - you see, we may have to choose one day whether to convert one of our Fox Db's into Oracle or Sql Server and will also be considering which company will rule the DB market.
>
>Any comments?
>
>Thanks
>Kev