Re: informix market share

I would agree with Xiaoxin. We just found out with our renewal that IBM is much more expensive than Oracle. We love Informix and had never even considered switching from Informix to any other db until we got our renewal quote. Since the "best and final" quote from IBM is still four to five times what Oracle is quoting, we will soon be implementing a head to head comparison between Oracle and Informix. When the cost of Oracle is 150K versus 750K for Informix IDS the comparison is just a formality. The difference for us is towfold: 1) We require relatively simple replication. For Informix, any E.R. replication requires IDS, but Oracle allows simple bi-direction table subsets in the Oracle equivalent of Informix Workgroup. 2) We reworked our front end app using VB with ODBC. In the old application we took one access hit per named user, now one user accounts for four or five server connections due to multiple background db access (I don't know if it is a VB or a ODBC thing). -Oracle only charges a premium price for full database sync in what they call multi-master replication. -Oracle has either a per processor charge or a named user charge where one named user equals one database access even in VB/ODBC. They also have built in web development tools that seem (from the Oracle sales guy) to take the place of some Informix development tools. I have doubs about this though. So most likely we will be heading down the Oracle highway (reluctantly) due to the lower cost.

caver wrote: > I would agree with Xiaoxin. We just found out with our renewal that > IBM is much more expensive than Oracle. > We love Informix and had never even considered switching from Informix > to any other db until we got our renewal quote. > Since the "best and final" quote from IBM is still four to five times > what Oracle is quoting, we will soon be implementing > a head to head comparison between Oracle and Informix. > > When the cost of Oracle is 150K versus 750K for Informix IDS the > comparison is just a formality. > > The difference for us is towfold: > 1) We require relatively simple replication. For Informix, any E.R. > replication > requires IDS, but Oracle allows simple bi-direction table subsets in > the Oracle > equivalent of Informix Workgroup. > > 2) We reworked our front end app using VB with ODBC. In the old > application we took one access hit per > named user, now one user accounts for four or five server connections > due to multiple background > db access (I don't know if it is a VB or a ODBC thing). > > -Oracle only charges a premium price for full database sync in what > they call multi-master replication. > > -Oracle has either a per processor charge or a named user charge where > one named user equals one > database access even in VB/ODBC. > > They also have built in web development tools that seem (from the > Oracle sales guy) to take the place of > some Informix development tools. I have doubs about this though. > > So most likely we will be heading down the Oracle highway (reluctantly) > due to the lower cost. > You should check out DB2 features first before going to Oracle, and especially DB2 HADR, a chimpanzee can set it up it's so simple. Plus you get all the same basic functionality of IDS in DB2, just a little rearranging of terminology, etc. DB2 will most like be more to your liking as it is more-like-Informix than Oracle, but hey, if you really want Oracle, go for it.

RollForward Wizard wrote: > You should check out DB2 features first before going to Oracle, and > especially DB2 HADR, a chimpanzee can set it up it's so simple. And apparently some do. But given Oracle's can be set up with not much more than a few mouse clicks how much simpler is it? Or are you making a vague reference to a neolithic version of Oracle long out of support? -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote: > RollForward Wizard wrote: > >> You should check out DB2 features first before going to Oracle, and >> especially DB2 HADR, a chimpanzee can set it up it's so simple. > > And apparently some do. But given Oracle's can be set up with not much > more than a few mouse clicks how much simpler is it? > It's not just a few mouse clicks it's also the licensing scheme(s) that are drastically different between Oracle and IBM, they are very very different pricing and licensing models. As a customer you owe it to yourself to at least see what the difference is. > Or are you making a vague reference to a neolithic version of Oracle > long out of support? I'm not making any reference to Oracle other than if someone so chooses to use it, then so be it. But they really need to understand what they are getting themselves into.