The 64-bit version of Microsoft’s database will cost the same as the 32-bit version and perform better–part of the company’s bid to undercut Oracle and IBM. Read it at News.com.
SQL Server Races Against Competition
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
You can keep it!
There’s a place for a real enterprise-class database, and that’s when you turn to Oracle and/or DB2. For anything less than that, go with MySQL/PostgreSQL.
It doesn’t really matter how fast it is as long as it only runs on proprietry operating systems it is not really an option. To integrate in the enterprise environment it needs to be available on commodity operating systems such as linux, solaris or other posix unix.
What if Ms actually achieved their dream of having a monopoly on all software?
Great software? Maybe in time, though I doubt it.
It would be a really lousy world.
They should be restricted to selling the Windows OS since they have a Monopoly in it.
“so, I am praying for the end of time
so I can end my time with you”
ms windows eula liscencee’s lament
with apologies to Meatloaf
Let’s not forget Firebird,
everyone is always mentioning mysql and postgress but there is also Firbird http://www.ibphoenix.com
http://www.gartner.com/reprints/microsoft/106576.html
I don’t see postgress, mysql, firebird, stonebird or whatever birds here.
Worldwide DBMS Software Vendors for 2001 Based on New License Sales
You would not see free open source versions when its based on License sales
…that it still runs on Windows hardware (x86) only.
So it is only usable up to the midrange server market.
I made a larger project based on SQL-Server 7.0 some years
ago an I have to say that even in that time it was a good database running on two Compaq Proliant Xeon Systems.
The best was the graphical DB Admin-Tools.
Very, very much better than the crap IBM delivers with DB2 nowadays.
Ralf.
//To integrate in the enterprise environment it needs to be available on commodity operating systems such as linux, solaris or other posix unix.//
You must be kidding. You’re saying no companies “in the enterprise environment” are running some version of W2K Server?
How hard it must be to be so stupid.
>You must be kidding. You’re saying no companies “in the
>enterprise environment” are running some version of W2K
>Server?
NO!, he/she was saying:
“To integrate in the enterprise environment it needs to be
available on commodity operating systems such as linux,
solaris or other posix unix.”
In the Enterprise Server Envoirment you will see little Windows, i worked at several places where the where Windows (nt4,2000 servers) but all they did was file and printer sharing. Databases and SA where all done by IBM, Sun and Compaq linux/unix servers. Maybe Windows 2003 server is ready for the Enterprise but i doubt it..
How soon thou doest forget. It is not the product, it is the marketing. Microsoft is coming in at a lower price point, combine that with a soft economy, and smaller budgets, this will cause mssql to get a second look. This is what has put other products on life support, such as Novell, Macintosh, Sybase, MS killed Banyan Vines, and to many others to name. Watch out because the train is coming to your city.