I work in a SQL Server 2000 environment and there are rumors going around my job site in which the IT Director is thinking of converting our local database to Oracle.
I work for a big company where the rest of the company is Oracle/Java-based. I work at a remote location where we are a full Microsoft shop in which we are doing SQL Server/.NET development.
We are doing amazing things here compared to the rest of the company. Everyone knows how good MS products are, but I want to make the argument why we should keep SQL Server here and not migrate to Oracle.
I wanted to ask some of you experts why SQL Server is better in my department as opposed to Oracle. I've dealt with Oracle in the past (a few years back) and as I remember, it is not as 'easy' to work in as is visually in SQL Server.
Arguments like scalability, easier to work with, the future of the product (.net), integration w/ other MS products, Reporting Services, and so on... are arguments I am thinking about. I would like to hear what others think as well.
I look forward to any assistance here.
I work for a big company where the rest of the company is Oracle/Java-based. I work at a remote location where we are a full Microsoft shop in which we are doing SQL Server/.NET development.
We are doing amazing things here compared to the rest of the company. Everyone knows how good MS products are, but I want to make the argument why we should keep SQL Server here and not migrate to Oracle.
I wanted to ask some of you experts why SQL Server is better in my department as opposed to Oracle. I've dealt with Oracle in the past (a few years back) and as I remember, it is not as 'easy' to work in as is visually in SQL Server.
Arguments like scalability, easier to work with, the future of the product (.net), integration w/ other MS products, Reporting Services, and so on... are arguments I am thinking about. I would like to hear what others think as well.
I look forward to any assistance here.
