Re: Is Informix too good?

Dear Echo, (I have a vague idea of who you are, you naughty boy... :-) In the year of Our Lord Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:40:13 GMT, e5142332@my-deja.com spake, saying: >Some old buds of mine had a problem the other day. Seems that >their site DBA's have become so used to stability that when >a problem arose, they fell over each other like Keystone Cops >trying to rectify it, and caused themselves a major outtage >uneccessarily. We are talking about a TB of data and 1000's of >users. The DBA group is one of the most gung-ho in the US. I can believe it. >This got me thinking: Is Informix's own product so good that >it causes people to avoid it? Just playing Devil's Advocate now: > >If Informix can outperform other competitors, and use 24 cpu's >vs. 32 - who will the HW Vendors reccommend? Well, it's so hard to say that, because Informix won't benchmark. So we only have the word of Informix that the platform is so efficient. :-> >If Oracle needs 20 consultants for 6 months vs. Informix 10 >for 3 - who would the consultant companies prefer? I'm not sure of this one. I think people like Accenture (Andersen Consulting to you, sir!) are so stretched that they still value something that allows them to milk clients without pushing their resources. >If the DBA's think that their management will go with 2 DBA's >per TB of Informix data vs. 5 or more for Oracle - who would >they prefer? > >If management is into empire-building and Informix can do more >for less, who would they rather go with? A Team of 30 high-profile >competitor consultants and an E10K Sun or 5 Informix >consultants raring to do another before the others are finished >scoping on an E6500? I haven't been on a site like this where the empire builder survived. Sooner or later, they go. I think an empire builder could get a more sustainable empire by delivering all the time. >What do you think?? Shoot me down! I think you're missing the main main problem Informix have: "no-one ever got fired for buying Oracle".

In article <3a707678.5775434@130.133.1.4>, obnoxio@hotmail.com (Obnoxio The Clown) wrote: > Dear Echo, > > (I have a vague idea of who you are, you naughty boy... :-) Indeed! We'll do lunch next time I'm in town - like 3 weeks. > In the year of Our Lord Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:40:13 GMT, e5142332@my-deja.com > spake, saying: > > >Some old buds of mine had a problem the other day. Seems that > >their site DBA's have become so used to stability that when > >a problem arose, they fell over each other like Keystone Cops > >trying to rectify it, and caused themselves a major outtage > >uneccessarily. We are talking about a TB of data and 1000's of > >users. The DBA group is one of the most gung-ho in the US. > > I can believe it. Comes with a certain degree of complacency - this crew is used 99.9% uptime - HW failure is about all they see. > > >This got me thinking: Is Informix's own product so good that > >it causes people to avoid it? Just playing Devil's Advocate now: > > > >If Informix can outperform other competitors, and use 24 cpu's > >vs. 32 - who will the HW Vendors reccommend? > > Well, it's so hard to say that, because Informix won't benchmark. So we only > have the word of Informix that the platform is so efficient. :-> ..and those of us who do see in real life, too! Question is, when we have to apologise to HW vendors for suggesting that an Informix solution will do the job with 12 cpu's less and no expensive disk storage - what does this tell you? Not an easy way to make friends. I think that if the HW folk think the customer will bite - they will go with Oracle in a heartbeat because it always seems to require more iron. > > >If Oracle needs 20 consultants for 6 months vs. Informix 10 > >for 3 - who would the consultant companies prefer? > > I'm not sure of this one. I think people like Accenture (Andersen Consulting to > you, sir!) are so stretched that they still value something that allows them to > milk clients without pushing their resources. Mabye I'm just dealing with the wrong customers! Mabye we are talking about the smaller, cheaper consulting groups that just want 'meat in a seat'? Nevertheless, I'm still seeing some big pork projects with the big 5 going for the planeloads of consultants - mabye it's more prevalent in the US? > > >If the DBA's think that their management will go with 2 DBA's > >per TB of Informix data vs. 5 or more for Oracle - who would > >they prefer? > > > >If management is into empire-building and Informix can do more > >for less, who would they rather go with? A Team of 30 high-profile > >competitor consultants and an E10K Sun or 5 Informix > >consultants raring to do another before the others are finished > >scoping on an E6500? > > I haven't been on a site like this where the empire builder survived. Sooner or > later, they go. I think an empire builder could get a more sustainable empire by > delivering all the time. I tend to be optimistically inclined to go with that idea - I'm just being frustrated by not seeing it right now. > > >What do you think?? Shoot me down! > > I think you're missing the main main problem Informix have: "no-one ever got > fired for buying Oracle". Yup. We have come full circle since 'No-one ever got fired for buying Big Blue'. It's a protect your own interests game, even if it's not in the best interests of your client or company. Point is, who can stop the trend? CFO's? and getting the story out to the end user who has to supply the budget while being blissfully unaware of being ripped off? It makes waves. Echo Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/