Re: Microsoft destroys TPC-C records!

On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:48:00 GMT, jahorsch_at_my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>So you think Oracle will drastically change its pricing or MS will?

They already both did. All you MS-heads who keep invoking the TCO bull-crap haven't been pricing Unix-based solutions of late. Do your checking with actual prices, not 2 years old info. And try to match apples with apples.

OF COURSE a commercial NT system for the department is cheaper than a TPCC UNIX benchmark system! But it can't do much more than run as a Netware file/print server.

If you want to run as a database server, you gotta re-install the whole lot and define the darn thing as a server instead of a PDC or BDC. So that means two systems, one for everything else, one for the database server. Oh dear, there goes the "half-price" bit down the drain!

What, you gonna tell me now that the same NT system can run effectively and efficiently as BOTH a PDC and a database server? Funny, not even MS themselves claim that...

>SQL Server can scale to the TB level.

No it can't. Never been proven in ANY real-life environment. So quit the crap.
Cripes, NT doesn't even have the software to efficiently backup that much data, let alone run a database on top of it...

>the market share is going away. Informix is tightly bound to retail
>and will probably stay around for quite some time. I just dont see
>them breaking into new projects other than where there is an install
>base. That will kill them. Their product from what I have seen is not
>as robust as some of the others in the functionality department.

And it is also one of the most used products for applications that want to build-in the database into an integrated turn-key system. Been there for long and is one of the best for that. Widely used, therefore plenty of market.

>conclusions from what others tell me and what I see. I think more
>people will start realizing that SQL Server/Windows 2000 is a solution
>for the Enterprise.

Of course. In time, by merit. Not because MS marketing "decrees" it.

> The solution will probably be much cheaper than
>say a Oracle/SUN solution.

At current prices, yes. To be proven, though...

> Wait till the end of this year and look at
>where 2000 datacenter is at and where SQL 2000 can scale and then we
>will see who is right.

Been waiting since NT and sql server came out. What was that? Oh yes, 10 years ago or so. Every new release it's always the same old crap: we are gonna beat everyone else. 6 months later, they pre-announce the next "killer" version combination.

Boring...

> If you can make a project fly at half the cost
>of another wouldnt you go that route even though it may not be the BEST
>solution?

Problem is you can't make it fly at half the cost.

> Have you used SQL 7.0 yet?

No. And I don't intend to.

> Seen any of the new posted
>features for SQL 2000?

Yes. Old hat.

> Read about the Tehma chipset for FOSTER and
>Itanium?

Yes. UNIX has been doing much more than that since the 386 was a baby. Why wait for the NT/Ms/Intel solution?

> Seen the 8-way TPCC benchmark for SQL 2000?

Yes. A load of unimplemented and "pre-announced" software, glued together with un-tested and un-proven custom code. Expen$ive as HELL to implement unless you are MS and can subsidize the techno-boffins to put it all together and mask the real price of such an implementation.

>Anyway I think we
>could go on and on about our differences.

Not me. Busy running the real world, not vaporware. Bye.

Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html Received on Thu Mar 23 2000 - 00:00:00 CST