Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

On Tue, 18 May 1999 00:06:27 +1000, rumours say that "Nuno Souto" <nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au> might have written:

>David <desertfox_at_thegrid.net> wrote in message
>news:2LP%2.2209$i4.117631_at_alfalfa.thegrid.net...

>> >You mean a marketing class that teaches me the science of creating
>> >LONG TERM demand for a product? Or the 30 second TV "marketing"
>> >MS specializes in?
>> Either one will do. Microsoft is an expert in marketing so watching their
>> commercials is a good start.

>Wrong. One is PR, the other is marketing. Marketing is NOT the same as PR
>and advertising, although marketing MAY include the use of both of these.

>Re-read what I said above about "the science ...etc".

>Remember the IBM 360? 30 years in the market? Remember the AS400,
>nearly 20 years and counting? THAT is marketing. Long term demand.

>Remember W95? 3 years in the market and gone? Remember the 486 and the
>Pentium? Three years each and gone? THAT is PR and tar and feathers.

>Capice?

<pendant> "Capisce?" is the polite form (third person), but you could also use "capisci?", as a more direct (as supposedly your intention was) approach. </pendant>

It seems you forget Moore's law. If my grand parent could travel across the Atlantic ocean in 14 days (on a ship) and I can do it in 12 hours (on a plane), it's a matter of progress, and not marketing of the sea-ship companies. The technology advances exponentially; accordingly, so its useful lifetime diminishes until the next technological advancement. IBM 360's and AS/400 stayed so many years in the market at first because there was no competition, and later because their use was so widespread, you could base a career on supporting them. This is not the case any longer. You can't be competent unless you continuously learn; mark the word "competent".

>> So you
>> are saying marketing is not PR and advertising?
>
>Read the above..
>
>> I always thought PR and
>> advertising were part of the whole marketing scheme and not separate
>> entities.
>
>No. Thought wrong. Not a problem, you're not alone. It's people who
>want to promote themselves as marketeers that have caused this, not you.
>You can have PR and advertising without the slightest involvement of
>marketing. Although nowadays it is the norm to call those marketing.
>Never was, still isn't. Take a REAL marketing course, you'll learn exactly
>what this means... Then watch what some companies do to profitably sell the
>same product over and over again without a single innovation, for years and
>years. THAT is marketing. Not to say that it is desirable, but just to make
>the point of the difference. <G>

Of course, crippled competition makes marketing's work easier, right? Take Coca-Cola for an example. It has competition, but those used to it, won't change it for anything else, right?

<snip snip of lots of lines>

I hate and love this kind of progress. I love progress, I hate seeing my money spent on hw or sw invalidated at such a rate. Unless your job is to maintain a legacy system, you have to upgrade; I don't like it, but I do it. And yes, I am a victim of marketing. I can't do otherwise. I must stay current.
I have written many lines of assembly in my youth (not professionally, mind you) and I know that the things I did then on my poor 68008 computer were miracles (at least to me) for its capabilities; a dumb Pentium 200 computer is hundreds of times more powerful than my old Sinclair QL. I hate this power being left unexploited; can I (or should I) stop progress? HW and SW has a very short life-cycle due to competition. What can one do? Revolt? You obviously have a good job working with legacy applications. You don't need to upgrade. That's fine. Just don't say that what the others have to do (continuously upgrade to keep up with newer, improved development platforms) is wrong.
--
Greetings from Greece, I speak England very best, TZOTZIOY, just an earthbound misfit, I
ICQ# 13397953 (when e-mailing remove the obvious after the .com part) Received on Mon May 17 1999 - 10:18:45 CDT