Re: Oracle/Sybase/Informix/MS-SQL Server

On 23 Dec 96 at 17:09, Cynthia Merritt wrote: > We are going to be purchasing an RDBMS sometime in 1997. Well, choose a database first, and *don't* run on NT. NT Sucks. And before everyone starts flaming me: get knotted! I don't care if Bill Gates has won the desktop war, a database doesn't belong on a desktop and "departmental computing" does not mean that you automatically have to run NT. NT is fine when it works automagically, but if things go wrong I'd rather support Unix any day! <wipes froth from mouth, takes necessary medication> All the databases you listed should do the job (any job :-) one way or another. I've worked with Oracle and Informix. I found Oracle really horrid: system admin was a confusing mess and the tools were appalling. I really enjoy working with Informix: it has great technology, outstanding performance and it's relatively fresh (rewritten in 1992 from the ground up, just merged with Illustra). But I'm equally sure all the other bigots of other databases will tell you how inept Informix is... :-) From a "big picture" perspective, consider the following: 1. Oracle are trying to be all things to all people - they are more than a database vendor, which, IMHO, is a bad thing. A lot of Oracle's size and revenue derives from non-database sources, such as consulting and Financials. This means that they are losing / have lost focus. 2. Microsoft are even more "all things to all people". I would imagine that SQLServer is less important to MS than Word 7. Also, you're limited to platform choice with SQLServer. 3. Sybase have lost their lead over Informix and, last I heard were being mentioned frequently in the same sentence as "Chapter 11". 4. Informix have a stated corporate policy to become the biggest database vendor in the world. They have a handful of (carefully chosen?) tools and they partner with people to provide end-to-end solutions. FWIW. -- Ciao, Billy I'd be in favour of apathy, but I just couldn't be bothered...