Re: What INFORMIX product shall I use?

In article <5je95o$8mc@godzilla.zeta.org.au>, Bryan Tonnet <batonnet@zeta.org.au> writes > >In <9CrILCAAE8VzEwa8@smooth1.demon.co.uk> David Williams ><djw@smooth1.demon.co.uk> writes: > > >>In article <5j1pg9$um6@godzilla.zeta.org.au>, Bryan Tonnet >><batonnet@zeta.org.au> writes >>>As an aside, and depending on precisely what your application is intended >>>for, and the volume of data travelling through it, have you considered SE. >>>Its a low maintenance, low cost engine that gives a good account of itself >>>in the bottom end of the DB market. Might even save you two bucks :) >>> >>>Bryan Tonnet >>>batonnet@zeta.org.au > >> OWS is supposed to be the replacement for SE which is being phased >>out... > >That's what I thought too. I posted here a while ago on that subject, and >the general concensus was.....buggered if we know. It would make sense to >phase SE out of the picture, but in Australia at least, pricing of OWS is >similar to Online 5 ( or was last time I looked ), whilst SE is pitched >lower. > >How's OWS perform on a single processor Unix PC, with commodity hardware >in it? You might not want to run Online 7 on that machine (performance as >well as cost), and isn't OWS simply a "marketing restriction limited" Online 7? > Not quite - the parallel features (PDQ,fragmentation) are disabled OWS. From what I have heard the same source code is used just certain features disabled at compile time. >Bryan Tonnet >batonnet@zeta.org.au > -- David Williams