Pleace advice me:
At my school I have a choice to study Oracle or MS SQL Server.  Which one is
today's Industry is more  in need for?

Thanks for any input.

Regards,

Mark

   Linkname: Oracle Announces Upgrade Tool for Microsoft SQL Server
        URL: http://www.oracle.com/st/products/features/migratetools.html

   We have a message for dissatisfied SQL Server customers - its faster  
   and easier to migrate to Oracle8 today than migrating to SQL Server 7
   will be tomorrow.                                                    

   On August 18, 1998, Oracle announced the beta release of Oracle
   Migration Workbench, a Java-based tool that provides customers with a
   simple process for converting from a Microsoft SQL Server database to
   the industry leading Oracle8 database. Oracle also announced plans to
   enhance Oracle8 with graphical wizards to make application development      
   for Windows NT faster and easier.

   While a growing number of companies are adopting Windows NT as a        
   development and application platform, they continue to have
   reservations about deploying their applications on Microsoft SQL
   Server. In response to strong customer demand, Oracle has developed
   the Oracle Migration Workbench, a tool that simplifies the process of
   migrating data and applications from SQL Server to Oracle8.

: Pleace advice me:
: At my school I have a choice to study Oracle or MS SQL Server.  Which one is
: today's Industry is more  in need for?
:
: Thanks for any input.
:
: Regards,
:
: Mark
:
:

If your starting from scratch, which it looks like you are, I'd opt for MS
SQL Server, you can get up and running very quickly, Oracle tends to be more
complicated and for a novice a bit more difficult not to mention more
expensive.

I'd also opt for version 7 of SQL Server, you can quite easily obtain the
beta 3 from MS, the product ships later this year. 6.5 will still be around
for a year or two, but 7 forms the next SQL Server for a long time to come.

The only other thing I would say is to keep your mind open, some RDBMS
producers are starting to get nervous about version 7 of SQL Server because
it offers some much in terms of functionality and interfaces to other
products.

--
Hope the above helps.

Tony Rogerson
Torver Computer Consultants Ltd.

I have different opinion. If you want to study at school, you should
choose a more complicated and difficult database to learn.

Also, if you have a lot of disk space and internet time, you can also try
to download oracle8 which is more than 150MB in compressd file.

: If your starting from scratch, which it looks like you are, I'd opt for MS
: SQL Server, you can get up and running very quickly, Oracle tends to be more
: complicated and for a novice a bit more difficult not to mention more
: expensive.
:
: I'd also opt for version 7 of SQL Server, you can quite easily obtain the
: beta 3 from MS, the product ships later this year. 6.5 will still be around
: for a year or two, but 7 forms the next SQL Server for a long time to come.
:
: The only other thing I would say is to keep your mind open, some RDBMS
: producers are starting to get nervous about version 7 of SQL Server because
: it offers some much in terms of functionality and interfaces to other
: products.
:
: --
: Hope the above helps.
:
: Tony Rogerson
: Torver Computer Consultants Ltd.
:
:
:

Mark -

  I think what you want to study depends on
what you want to specialize in.  So you're really
asking "What do I want to specialize in??"

  Well, if you are posting to a VB group, it sounds
to me like you want to specialize in microsoft
technoliges.  The usually means:

OS:  Windows 95/98, NT
Programming: Visual Basic, Visual C++
Database:  MS Access, MS SQL Server
Internet: IIS, or anything else my MS.

  If you want to get "well-rounded", you could get
formal training in SQL Server, and get your MCP/
MCSE/MCSD, then get a first job using oracle.  That
would be good.  Or, give up on the middle path and
just go all the way for one or the other.

good luck!

Matt H.

[SNIP]
This is true, but I don't think a school course has
any chance to cover much about complicated aspects of
Oracle or about complicated relational theories.
They will probably cover some basic aspects and then
teach you how to build small effective solutions.

I know nothing about version 8, but I found
the administrative course for version 7 quite heavy.

Moreover while more powerful, the PL-SQL is much more
complicated than T-SQL.

IMHO you should take the SQL Server course:

- setup is much simpler
- administration has been simplified to the point that
  you can forget about it when developing small databases
- chances are that you will find more and more SQL Server
  databases around in the near future, small companies
  simply don't have the money for a skilled Oracle
  consultant.

You still have the chance to learn Oracle later and most
of what you have learned (database and query design for
example) will come handy.

Just my 2 cents.
--
Gianluca Hotz                                __
Technical Service Manager at Alphasys srl   /  \/ /
MCP Windows & MCP + MVP SQL Server         / /\/ /
Currently working for Ekar spa             \ \/ /\
http://ghotz.home.ml.org                    \__/\ \

Of course 8 is even "heavier", even without some of the newer features
such as "nested tables" etc.

PL/SQL is a real computer language. A fairly complex one originally
based on ADA as a model. I can't comment on T-SQL not having had much
exposure to it, but I can state that PL/SQL will afford you the ability
to create quite sophisticated applications with a minimal need to reach
outside of the database. Admittedly that's a double- edged sword: as a
proprietary solution it does render your application more dependent
upon Oracle itself.

This is a "bum rap" on Oracle. The fact of the matter is that setting
up Oracle in a small environment is very simple. The NT and Win95
version of Oracle server (as far as I know MS still hasn't bothered to
port SQL Server to Win95) have default setups that will work very well
with little or no modification. Then, if you need to make modifications
because you are encountering size related problems, Oracle affords you
the ability to make changes in virtually any aspect of the system.
Even if you are reluctant to use Oracle support, there are plenty of
third party resources that explain every parameter in great detail.

Above, I noted that developing in PL/SQL does constitute something of a
lock-in situation, but we find the same being true of SQL Server.  If
your database becomes too complex or two important to trust to NT, with
Oracle you can move it with little fuss or muss to dozens of Unix
platforms (now including Linux) as well as even larger class
installations (OS/390, etc).

See above. The same is true for a large number of instances for Oracle.
I've developed dozens of "small" databases using Oracle which have
required only trivial change from the default install.

So, SQL Server consultants will be working for free? Because if your
claim is that applications will be magically simpler to implement in
SQL Server than Oracle, I have to admit I've never seen such a case.
And how much does it cost to deal with problems resulting from the fact
that various critical features simply don't exist in SQL Server?

One thing that I think often missed in these discussions is that Oracle
can be the simplest product to use under a great many scenarios.
Oracle SQL is a very simple implementation, SQL*Plus continues to be
(imo) a powerful and easy to use window on the database, and many of
the Oracle tools (Developer and Designer 2000) permit true rapid
application development. In fact, I think most people who have gotten
"over the hump" of the learning curve on these products can produce
useful applications much more rapidly than those people developing in
C, C++ or Visual Basic.

Of course if you learn Oracle now and Oracle disappears into the
great Microsoft void, making the transition to SQL Server should
be a no-brainer. :-)

Adding two cents here and there. <smile again>
--
-----------------------
Jack F. Love
Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree

Of cource Oracle! :)

I think the best choice is to study both and to choose by yourself.

Best regards, Mark

Again, this is one reason why I would recommend
SQL Server for a start.

I know that PL-SQL is much more powerful than T-SQL.
But again IMO being simple, T-SQL is opportune for a start.

SQL Server 7 will be available also for the Win95/Win98 platforms.
As I said I have not much experience with Oracle, the only Win95
version I tried was version 4 of Oracle 2000, and yes I must admit
it was fairly simple to setup.

I'm not saying SQL Server is right now a competitor with Oracle about
very large database systems. Hopefully this will became less true
in the future with new releases of SQL Server (the terraserver is a
great example of a huge database online). If you expect your database
solution to grow to such an extent, then you would have probably
chosen Oracle in the first place anyway.

Beside that, the new trend is to build multi-tier applications where
the logic remains in the middle tier (written with one of powerful and
broadly available languages like Visual Basic, Visual Basic script or
anything else). Switching to a more powerful RDBMS, that can scale more,
should be fairly easy in such a situation. Not so easy as for moving
Oracle from NT to a Unix box, but as I said hopefully SQL Server and NT
will scale more in the future.

I'll take that for true. In my experience I had to deal with Oracle 7.3
installations administered by different guys, and they provided
the administration support.

Yes, of course I'm working for free....
Here in Italy the fact is that Oracle consultants cost more than
SQL Server consultants. Don't know about other countries, but this
is what I experienced here.

Most small companies are buying office or back office small business
server because they are cheap and productive.
It's full of consultants that can work in the Windows/NT environment
and that can code in Visual Basic, integrating office components.

Developer and Designer 2000 can be easy to use, but I think
Visual Basic and Visual Basic for applications is a better start.

:-)

Best regards,
--
Gianluca Hotz                                __
Technical Service Manager at Alphasys srl   /  \/ /
MCP Windows & MCP + MVP SQL Server         / /\/ /
Currently working for Ekar spa             \ \/ /\
http://ghotz.home.ml.org                    \__/\ \

I operate in just such a scenerio... and I love it!  My development team does
all of their work on cheap ($) NT server laptops, running Oracle8 database
and OAS 4 where ever they want; sitting at home on the couch, on a plane, at
a client's office, etc. They do ALL of their PL/SQL development on this
platform, and then migrate it, very easily I might add, to our
multi-processor Sun box running Solaris.  The end result is an application
that will run on ANY Oracle-supported platform, no special compilations, etc.

platform?
Yes.

Don't know. just have a look at it. The beta version is free.

Best regards,
--
Gianluca Hotz                                __
Technical Service Manager at Alphasys srl   /  \/ /
MCP Windows & MCP + MVP SQL Server         / /\/ /
Currently working for Ekar spa             \ \/ /\
http://ghotz.home.ml.org                    \__/\ \

Is it really true that SQLServer 7.0 (beta) is available in win98 platform?

How is it compared with the SQLAnywhere or Personal Oracle on the same
platform?

: > >I know nothing about version 8, but I found
: > >the administrative course for version 7 quite heavy.
: >
: > Of course 8 is even "heavier", even without some of the newer features
: > such as "nested tables" etc.
:
: Again, this is one reason why I would recommend
: SQL Server for a start.
:
: > >Moreover while more powerful, the PL-SQL is much more
: > >complicated than T-SQL.
: >
: > PL/SQL is a real computer language. A fairly complex one originally
: > based on ADA as a model. I can't comment on T-SQL not having had much
: > exposure to it, but I can state that PL/SQL will afford you the ability
: > to create quite sophisticated applications with a minimal need to reach
: > outside of the database. Admittedly that's a double- edged sword: as a
: > proprietary solution it does render your application more dependent
: > upon Oracle itself.
:
: I know that PL-SQL is much more powerful than T-SQL.
: But again IMO being simple, T-SQL is opportune for a start.
:
: > >IMHO you should take the SQL Server course:
: > >
: > >- setup is much simpler
: >
: > This is a "bum rap" on Oracle. The fact of the matter is that setting
: > up Oracle in a small environment is very simple. The NT and Win95
: > version of Oracle server (as far as I know MS still hasn't bothered to
: > port SQL Server to Win95) have default setups that will work very well
: > with little or no modification. Then, if you need to make modifications
: > because you are encountering size related problems, Oracle affords you
: > the ability to make changes in virtually any aspect of the system.
: > Even if you are reluctant to use Oracle support, there are plenty of
: > third party resources that explain every parameter in great detail.
:
: SQL Server 7 will be available also for the Win95/Win98 platforms.
: As I said I have not much experience with Oracle, the only Win95
: version I tried was version 4 of Oracle 2000, and yes I must admit
: it was fairly simple to setup.
:
: > Above, I noted that developing in PL/SQL does constitute something of a
: > lock-in situation, but we find the same being true of SQL Server.  If
: > your database becomes too complex or two important to trust to NT, with
: > Oracle you can move it with little fuss or muss to dozens of Unix
: > platforms (now including Linux) as well as even larger class
: > installations (OS/390, etc).
:
: I'm not saying SQL Server is right now a competitor with Oracle about
: very large database systems. Hopefully this will became less true
: in the future with new releases of SQL Server (the terraserver is a
: great example of a huge database online). If you expect your database
: solution to grow to such an extent, then you would have probably
: chosen Oracle in the first place anyway.
:
: Beside that, the new trend is to build multi-tier applications where
: the logic remains in the middle tier (written with one of powerful and
: broadly available languages like Visual Basic, Visual Basic script or
: anything else). Switching to a more powerful RDBMS, that can scale more,
: should be fairly easy in such a situation. Not so easy as for moving
: Oracle from NT to a Unix box, but as I said hopefully SQL Server and NT
: will scale more in the future.
:
: > >- administration has been simplified to the point that
: > >  you can forget about it when developing small databases
: >
: > See above. The same is true for a large number of instances for Oracle.
: > I've developed dozens of "small" databases using Oracle which have
: > required only trivial change from the default install.
:
: I'll take that for true. In my experience I had to deal with Oracle 7.3
: installations administered by different guys, and they provided
: the administration support.
:
: > >- chances are that you will find more and more SQL Server
: > >  databases around in the near future, small companies
: > >  simply don't have the money for a skilled Oracle
: > >  consultant.
: >
: > So, SQL Server consultants will be working for free? Because if your
: > claim is that applications will be magically simpler to implement in
: > SQL Server than Oracle, I have to admit I've never seen such a case.
: > And how much does it cost to deal with problems resulting from the fact
: > that various critical features simply don't exist in SQL Server?
: >
: > One thing that I think often missed in these discussions is that Oracle
: > can be the simplest product to use under a great many scenarios.
: > Oracle SQL is a very simple implementation, SQL*Plus continues to be
: > (imo) a powerful and easy to use window on the database, and many of
: > the Oracle tools (Developer and Designer 2000) permit true rapid
: > application development. In fact, I think most people who have gotten
: > "over the hump" of the learning curve on these products can produce
: > useful applications much more rapidly than those people developing in
: > C, C++ or Visual Basic.
:
: Yes, of course I'm working for free....
: Here in Italy the fact is that Oracle consultants cost more than
: SQL Server consultants. Don't know about other countries, but this
: is what I experienced here.
:
: Most small companies are buying office or back office small business
: server because they are cheap and productive.
: It's full of consultants that can work in the Windows/NT environment
: and that can code in Visual Basic, integrating office components.
:
: Developer and Designer 2000 can be easy to use, but I think
: Visual Basic and Visual Basic for applications is a better start.
:
: > >You still have the chance to learn Oracle later and most
: > >of what you have learned (database and query design for
: > >example) will come handy.
: >
: > Of course if you learn Oracle now and Oracle disappears into the
: > great Microsoft void, making the transition to SQL Server should
: > be a no-brainer. :-)
:
: :-)
:
: Best regards,
: --
: Gianluca Hotz                                __
: Technical Service Manager at Alphasys srl   /  \/ /
: MCP Windows & MCP + MVP SQL Server         / /\/ /
: Currently working for Ekar spa             \ \/ /\
: http://ghotz.home.ml.org                    \__/\ \
:

It seems that I cannot download the SQLServer 7 in the internet, right?

: > Is it really true that SQLServer 7.0 (beta) is available in win98
: platform?
: Yes.
:
: > How is it compared with the SQLAnywhere or Personal Oracle on the same
: > platform?
:
: Don't know. just have a look at it. The beta version is free.
:
: Best regards,
: --
: Gianluca Hotz                                __
: Technical Service Manager at Alphasys srl   /  \/ /
: MCP Windows & MCP + MVP SQL Server         / /\/ /
: Currently working for Ekar spa             \ \/ /\
: http://ghotz.home.ml.org                    \__/\ \
:

Ng,

 The Win98 version of SQL 7 is functionally identical to the NT
version.  This isn't the case with the other products.  However, for a
comparison between SQL 7 and the others I can't really help you.

 Neil Pike MVP/MCSE
 Protech Computing Ltd
 (Please post ALL replies to the newsgroup only unless indicated
otherwise)

I use both. If you are aiming to become a programmer, I don't think it
makes that much difference. SQL Server ships with FAR better tools, but
Oracle seems to be more solid, and faster.

(OK... go ahead...flame away...)

Regardless of platform choice, I would definitely recommend learning
ANSI SQL inside and out.
Learn how to do common queries and then move on to more complex ones.
Many programmers lack the skill to write effective SQL code.

If you are mainly concerned with the marketability of your skills, check
the newspapers in your city, and see how many jobs are avaiable for each
platform. In my area, there are more SQL Server openings, but I live in
Microsoft's backyard, so that may not be the case for you.

I recently read that Oracle would incorporate more and more Java into
the engine. I don't know where they are going with this, but I've often
fantasized about a time when we will be able to write stored procedures
in a standard programming language, like Java, C++, or VBA. That would
be so cool. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Dave
--
I am a resident of Washington state. In Washington, Spam
is subject to a $500 or greater penalty. You are warned.