Let's give Microsoft SQL Server some credit

JR – wrong – it has

JR – wrong – it has nothing to do with support, sizing or admin - its all about the architecture. Until SQL Server gets rid of the locking concurrency model and is ported to other platforms, it will continue to play second fiddle to Oracle. SQL Server’s biggest down fall is it only runs on Windows – which still doesn’t efficiently scale past 4 CPUs. And MSFT has no answer for RAC and Grid. Study the products and you will find out why leading technology companies like Yahoo have bet their business on Oracle.

Is MS SQL really as scalable

Is MS SQL really as scalable as Oracle? Can yahoo run an SQl server for example, or banks with with millions of clients?

Yes, with a premium support as Oralce and big clients do

And all related task, like sizing, administering in a good way. etc. etc.

I agree with Amos. I deal

I agree with Amos. I deal with many companies, small, middle, big, bigger and giant. small and middle size companies use MS SQL. Others, banks (even the biggest in EU), goverment...cities.... they all use Oracle. Why? Maybe level of scalability is the answer.

Is MS SQL really as scalable

Is MS SQL really as scalable as Oracle? Can yahoo run an SQl server for example, or banks with with millions of clients?

Are some MS SQL Server 2005

Are some MS SQL Server 2005 issues fixed when the Windows OS is patched? I would think that they're tied very tightly.

Yes, I was also pleasantly

Yes, I was also pleasantly surprised by the low number of SQL Server 2005 as well although there are more than a few bugs out there that are more than annoying. Therefore, I have a comment about the quality of mainframe products versus microcomputer products. I started in the mainframe world and one thing I learned hanging out with the IBM system engineers was that there was zero tolerance for bugs or vulnerabilities and I incorporated it into my worldview. Fortunately I was at a very young age so "I didn't know any better." [I started programming mainframes at age 10, a table of logarithms to base pi for geometric calculations.] That attitude is far from pervasive in the microcomputer world and why I distinguish myself as a software/database engineer (among other types) rather than a developer.

I have programs out there still in use by the military that are almost twenty years old, still run under the latest and greatest (?) versions of whatever line of microcomputer operating systems they were programmed for and have yet to show one bug or vulnerability. These were not small applications or application suites designed and executed by my teams. I think it is high time we start holding the industry to much higher standards but I won't hold my breath expecting to see it happen.

You are right - the IBM

You are right - the IBM databases also deserve kudos. People have been predicting the death-spiral of mainframes for a generation now, but they hang in there because DB2 works, and works well. Thanks for pointing this out.

IBM Mainframe is an

IBM Mainframe is an Operating System not a Database...

Run the search on DB/2 and you get 4 2006 hits.

Mainframes are difficult/impossible to justify for acquisition and maintenance costs, capacity, development costs, etc compared to Oracle and SQL Server based systems.

Let's see... And how many

Let's see...
And how many hits did you find on the IBM mainframe [a search on 'z/OS'; unqualified]?

I found two, both under review and therefore may go away. And, of the two, one was a CA product and not IBM's.

I'm always amazed that the mainframe never seems to get the credit it is due.

I an NOT interested in getting this published, but only getting it to someone who WRITES for the magazine.