Re: TCP benchmarks -Reply

Marty/Snorri You are right. This kind of advertising has been going on for some time and lends no respect. Peter Tashkoff >>> Marty Elliott <marty@idsweb.com> 11/May/1996 10:54am >>> In article <30B1B3D0.2781@strengur.is>, Snorri Bergmann <snorri@strengur.is> wrote: >HiHo! > >I just got Computerworld from Oct. 30th and saw two ads >from Oracle (pages 7 & 9). I'd like to hear peoples opinion >on these facts: > >1) All O benchmarks are "unavailable" until march 1996 and are made >using an unreleased product, Oracle 7.3. > >2) O compares results to Sybase 10 only, although Sybase 11 benchmarks >are available at the time the ad is made. (SUN 2000E 4544 TPC/$396/Tpc). >They are however "unavailable" just as O 7.3, but I guess mine >"unavailable" are better than yours. > >3) O compares (on page 9) it's HP K410 benchmark to Informix's T500 >benchmark which was WITHDRAWN at the time Oracle submitted the K410 one. >Oracle has done a benchmark on T500 w/12 CPUS at a similar $/TPC as >Informix (but more cpus, faster fe's, newer HP-UX version and absolutely >less expensive hardware because the O benchmark is like 9 months newer >than the Informix one.) >The Informix/T500 benchmark is over a >year old (since Q4 '94), and in fact most of the benchmarks on p.7 >(apart from the Oracle ones) are "old". Maybe the competition should >dig up old tcp-b benchmarks Oracle has withdrawn and use them in >comparison. > >I find it highly unlikely that ads like these are in the spirit of >the TCP-Council. Informix and Sybase could undoubtly create similar ads >by just ignoring/neglecting some competitors' benchmarks and in the >end the customer would be confused as hell. > >Take care, > >-Snorri hear hear!