Re: Microsoft destroys TPC-C records!

On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:39:31 GMT, jahorsch_at_my-deja.com wrote:

>over processors and see what happens. I do not know much about Sequent
>but I imagine their bus must have something to make it fly as well.
>That is proprietary while the profusion is available from many vendors.

Yes, it is proprietary. They use a technique called I believe Numa-Q. Which IBM just got because they bought Sequent... But there are others using Intel as well in the UNIX world.

> You obvious hate
>MS in a big way.

Nope. I just hate their crappy marketing bullshiters who think the entire IT world is minimally interested in their itti-bitty desktop approach of "does everything, for free, if not just Ctrl-Alt-Del". Just because they sell a lot of them to game-players and home-surfers doesn't define MS as experts on everything.

There is a difference between the processing requirements of a corporate system and the OS requirements of a gamer. The day MS marketeers realize they are not talking to brain-damaged youngsters when they talk to IT in general is the day they EARN our collective respect. Until then, they get back what they throw at the industry: crap.

> I am just trying to state that SQL Server and NT are
>not a bad solution.

And you are darn right too. In the appropriate place.

> I am trying to influence people that make decision
>in the world to not just consider Informix or Oracle because SQL
>Server/NT cannot scale or is not reliable enough.

Oops. Wrong. Either MS increases the reliability of their systems and software or they don't get looked at by people that buy the other products you mention. Simple. This is not a game. We're talking systems that are ESSENTIAL to corporations and businesses AND their money. They can't be managed with the "Ctrl-Alt-Del" mentality. When MS realizes this and stops the "bell and whistles" new releases and concentrates on improving reliability and maintainability, they'll get looked at. AFTER they have established a reputation.

> People out there do
>not even think about SQL Server for a solution when it would be a great
>candidate.

Why? Because it's cheap? You pay peanuts you get monkeys, buddy.

> Have you not ever had to call for Oracle support through
>their fun Tar process and get some moron on the other end that doesn’t
>know their head from their *ss?

Yes, definitely. I've had the same from MS. And IBM.

> I have encountered many Oracle bugs in
>the engine and especially in their tools. I have seen Informix and
>Oracle go down in a blaze of glory.

So have I. But I have yet to completely loose an ORACLE database. Since V4. That's 16 years ago, when MS was a dot in the end of a fly's butt. Who do I trust? Next question?

> Nothing is perfect and defining a
>stable environment has everything to do with proper procedure and
>architecture.
>

That's a great truth. Pity MS doesn't follow it and insists on applying the "desktop approach" to everything they do.

>
>As I said before NT is still not as mature as UNIX and has a way sto
>go. I still think that you cannot rule SQL Server out of an Enterprise
>solution. 2000 scales quite well with the proper chipsets.

I agree with you. But what I don't agree is MS selling the stuff as if it is the be-all-end-all of computing. It's not. The day they admit it and stop the bullshit is the day they get looked at seriously.

>
>I think MS is cheaper in OS and DBMS. If you already have an
>Enterprise agreement with MS then SQL Server is practically free.

Won't work. I'm reminded of another company that tried to flog a flawed product (Digital with RDB) for free and it didn't work either. In this day and age no software company can afford to develop and improve a database for free. Not without some serious consequences somewhere else.

>years. If the playing field is level as far as architects/ dbas/ and
>developers go and a methodology that removes "dynamic" requirements I
>think MS is hard to beat. Even if you choose a 2 tier architecture
>with say PB as the front end you will still save money due to less DBA
>work, Cheaper OS/DBMS, Cheaper hardware, and less sysadmin work.

Agree with the cheaper hardware and cheaper OS/DBMS. Do not agree with the cheaper sysadmin work and the cheaper DBA work. For complex corporate solutions, you'll have as much DBA work in SS as you do in ORACLE. And that's a fact of life.

There is nothing in SS that makes it INHERENTLY less DBA intensive than ORACLE, quite the opposite.

And as for NT being easier to sysadmin than UNIX, as someone who has taken sysadmin courses and worked as such for BOTH of these OSs, I can tell you it is a complete fallacy.

If you think fiddling around with improperly documented and volatile registry entries and a brain-damaged shell command language is my idea of easier sysadmin than UNIX's ksh....

<G>

>Tuxedo/Corba/DCOM they all have their issues. Just make the playing
>field level and it still will be cheaper.

I want to believe you. Unfortunately, everytime I've seen a truly level playing field, I've found glaring huge holes in NT/SS solutions. Which need to be plugged with $$$. So I don't go along with this cheaper bit. Seen too many projects have lots and lots of resources thrown into to fix problems "glossed over" to make the initial solution look cheaper.

Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html Received on Thu Feb 24 2000 - 07:16:38 CST