Re: Oracle and PICK

"Dan" <guntermannxxx_at_verizon.com> wrote in message news:<2Zhgc.5856$Aq.1415_at_nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...

Hi Dan !

I've read the thread, though my conclusions are somewhat different - I'd suggest the topic should perhaps be "Bad database design sucks - with ANY DBMS !"

I also note that the application itself appears to be quite ancient, so the methodologies that were used at that time were probably sub-optimal by ANY standard :-)

Actually, given the age of the application, this could be a classic TCO study, if we could find an "Oracle" (or other relational) solution somewhere from the same vintage to do a direct cost comparison.

Do you want to pose the question to CDP Dan ? Are there enough "Oracle" people here to get a corresponding reference point, or would the request need to go directly to that group as well ?

Given we are talking historical figures from 15-20 years ago, I would think that the client companies may not mind "anonamously" making real (or close approximation) figures available .... perfect opportunity to get some quantifiable facts & figures on where TCO figures do stand over the long term !

>
> Hi Ross.
>
> You do make good points, but evolving business requirements and the
> adaptability/flexibility of the system seem to pose as great in not greater
> influences to TCO. A good example of why PICK might actually have orders of
> magnitude higher TCO in cases where applications share data or need to
> integrate can be found right in the comp.databases.pick newsgoup under the
> subject line, "Why meaningful Item ID's suck."
>
> Pick is so bound by its physical organization, that changes to logical
> identifiers across a set of conceptually related items leaves it open to no
> other choice but to entirely redesign an entire system. In the case of the
> thread mentioned, the work was estimated to take nearly two years. Note
> that Dawn, in her concern for TCO, recommends to the OP, "Best wishes and
> make 'em pay". I'd recommend reading the whole thread to anyone who is
> interested.
>
> This makes as good ancedoctal evidence anything else.
>
> I'm refraining from posting a URL to the referenced thread because it might
> be unacceptable to those netizen police out there that find excessively long
> URLs in newsgroups are impolite.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
Received on Sun Apr 18 2004 - 14:16:19 CEST