Re: Informix 7.2 vs. Oracle 7.3 on 64-bit Digital Alpha Ser

From: Perry Dillard <perryd_at_fourgen.com>
Date: 1996/03/27
Message-ID: <4jckn9$ke5_at_cssun.mathcs.emory.edu>#1/1


}>>>>>>>>> Perry's response to David Sidwell <<<<<<<<<<

Get a life Sidwell. Informix kicks Oracle butt all day long. Forget all the speed and builtin, not bolt-on, paralellism and multi-threading. Informix is way easier to setup and administer than Oracle. I'd buy it just for that reason alone. Oh yeah, it also uses less machine resources so I don't have to spend a tonne on memory, I can spend a little extra on another CPU or two since Informix can utilize memory better, and I get more paralellism with more CPU's.

This is a moot discussion. Oracle is more interested in building internet devices than providing real databases anyway. Informix has nothing to worry about.

Informix is the best. I said it, you heard it, that settles it!

} Date: 27 Mar 96 08:57:25 -0800
} From: "David Sidwell" <DASIDWEL_at_us.oracle.com>
} To: bw000001_at_pixie.co.za
} Subject: Re: Informix 7.2 vs. Oracle 7.3 on 64-bit Digital Alpha Ser
} Cc: informix-list_at_rmy.emory.edu
}
}
} Billy,
}
} >> [snip for brevity - (more chest-beating and
} >> complete Informix customer list removed)]
 

} >That's _really_ low, even for an Oracle employee.
 

} >Anyway, it's pretty damn odd that Oracle's posts of a similar
} >nature are not considered "chest-beating" (by an Oracle
} >employee.)
}
} They're not considered "chest-beating" ????? What makes you so
} sure ?
}
} Benchmarking is a game of leap-frogging - whoever has the
} higher numbers *at that time* will engage in a spot of
} chest-beating. Isn't it rather strange that you do not
} recognise this trait ?
}
} >Still, it's must be nice for Informix marketing to know that
} >the Oracle people who read this group are sufficiently
} >paranoid to make such juvenile posts about "chest-beating". It
} >must mean that they're worried that it might be true...
}
} Paranoid ? No, I know they're out to get me :)
}
} Worried, with an ever increasing market lead ? I don't think
} so.
}
} Isn't it *ever* so strange that you failed to comment on the
} reason for my post in the first place - to set the record
} straight about relative costs. The post I responded to
} appeared to have a blatant lie regarding cost of the Oracle
} system vs. the cost of the informix one. Hence my post.
}
} Still judging by your previous posts, I shouldn't be surprised
} when you ignore the obvious valid points and only carp on the
} editing I performed to reduce bandwidth.
}
} >Affectionately yours,
}
} Right back at you.
} Regards,
}
} David Sidwell.
}
}

-perryd (Guru)


Received on Wed Mar 27 1996 - 00:00:00 CET

Original text of this message