Re: Microsoft destroys TPC-C records!

<jahorsch_at_my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8bb9fr$lbe$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <38D913CF.F6DB1605_at_msgto.com>,
> Tim Uckun <Malcontent_at_msgto.com> wrote:
> > > people will start realizing that SQL Server/Windows 2000 is a
 solution
> > > for the Enterprise. The solution will probably be much cheaper
 than
> > > say a Oracle/SUN solution. Wait till the end of this year and
 look
 at
> > > where 2000 datacenter is at and where SQL 2000 can scale and
 then we
> >
> > SQL server is in an odd position right now. Enterprise users don't
 trust
> > it and certainly don't trust NT to provide them with high uptimes.
 For
> > serious applications they seem to prefer mainframes or Solaris
 clusters.
> > This shuts SQL server out of the picture. Also SQL server cost
> > calculations have include a per user license for NT as well as SQL
> > server so it does not end up cheaper then Oracle or DB/2. You can
 run
> > these on Solaris or Linux neither one of which has a per user fee
> > associated with it.
> >
> > On the bottom end SQL server is being pressured by databases like
> > sqlanywhere, interbase adn postgres which are free or cheap. Right
 now
> > by not making Access SQL92 compliant they seem to provide a hurdle
 to
> > upsizing to other databases but the open source model seems to be
> > adapting well as there are numerous tools for upsizing access to
> > postgreslq.
> >
> > In summary. SQL server is being pressured on the high end by
 Oracle
 and
> > IBM, and on the low end by free databases that are very capable of
> > serving your average small business. Their only tools to fight
 back
 are
> > a monopoly in desktop databases (access) which makes it hard to
 upsize
> > to other databases and a monopoly in operating systems which they
 use
 to
> > subsidize the SQL server pricing structure. It remains to be seen
 if
> > they can increase their market share (around 10% last I checked)
 using
> > these techniques while still ignoring corba, java, unix, other
> > technologies that they did not invent. Of course if they get
 broken up
> > or the pyramid scheme they have going by buying and selling their
 own
> > stock collapses I would expect to SQL server to be priced much
 higher
> > then it is now.
> >
>
> Look at TPC-C and then tell me how Oracle and Sun are in the same
> ballpark for peformance/cost. I already stated above the fact that
> most enterprises will not embrace NT/SQL Server as an enterprise
> solution. I can tell you at a fortune 100 company that I am
 currently
> at SQL Server is much more available than Informix, Oracle, and UDB.
> Havent you heard of MSDE? MSDE and Jet are free and can scale you
 up
> to 2GB which is good enough for most small businesses. Personally I
 do
> not see a squeeze from top and bottom I see a push. Lets not forget
> SQL Server will run on CE as well. SQL Server should be suitable
 for
> 95% of all new applications that are not forced to a particular
> platform. Some of those 5% Oracle wouldnt be able to do either. As
 I
> keep saying just wait till the end of this year and we will see
 where
> it all stands.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

Nathan Myers page has a very interesting article http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html. I personally don't agree with Mr Myers conclusions. It shows to me that MS targets (at least used to target) broad audiance with little expectations about how the software should behave : with respects to bugs in particular. MS is cheaper, but lower quality too. I don't know if they keep coping with this strategy on databases. If yes, I don't know either how much desktop OS users look like database users. Received on Thu Mar 23 2000 - 00:00:00 CST