Re: Microsoft meets the Oracle challenge?

Isn't it false or misleading to say a product performs better than a competing product when it clearly does not?

"Norman D. Megill" wrote:

> In article <36EFFFB0.8F65DB25_at_hershey.com>,
> Eddie Mars <mars_at_hershey.com> wrote:
> >Eddie Mars wrote:
> >>
> >> Is it true? Or just more of the same you-know-what?
> >>
> >> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/990316/wa_msft_sq_1.html
> >
> >FWIW, Oracle has a different take...
> >
> >http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990317S0002
> >
> >...he said, she said.
>
> If you read the MS press release carefully, it appears that all they did
> was simply to build a 1-Terabyte db. This is no big deal - you just
> need big enough disks. Nothing was said about performance, which is the
> key issue. Read carefully - "performance" appears in the title of the
> press release, but not in the body.
>
> So, it appears they falsely claimed to have met Oracle's published
> challenge, which includes a performance benchmark. This might mislead
> potential customers into thinking that MS's system is in the same league
> as Oracle's (or even worse, the converse :). It seems to me Oracle may
> have been potentially harmed by libelous remarks. It will be
> interesting to see what Oracle does about this.
>
> (There is also the fact that MS claimed to have met the challenge when
> in fact the closing date for the challenge had already elapsed. This is
> a minor point, but it does reinforce my general feeling that it's hard
> to trust anything MS says. I mean, what they said was a lie, right?)
>
> --Norm
Received on Thu Mar 25 1999 - 00:00:00 CET