Re: Fw: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

Comments interspersed. rkusenet wrote: >"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote:- > > > >>Please note above where I said: >>"Oh we can all quote this study or that purchased by this >>company or that to support some proposition." >>What was the point you were trying to make in reaffirming my statement? >> >> > >What was ur statement, eh? That no study about TCO is complete. I don't buy it. >The report by IDC wasn't even declaring a clear winner between SQLServer and >DB2. All it showed was that Oracle was significantly expensive. > Meaningless. IDC might well be correct based on the specific situation they were exploring. I could easily develop a set of criterion that would make Oracle look like the cheapest. Lets say, for example, you wanted capabilities requiring abilities not in SQL Server. The point is that the criteria used to evaluate predispose to one product or another. It is the same thing as with a political poll. I can ask the same question multiple ways and get completely different responses. And pollsters do. All this TCO and benchmark nonsense is is someone selecting a question to ask that may bear absolutely no relationship to any real-world situation. >>For my company, I have also seen quotations for the above three which shows >>Go ahead and list the options Oracle quoted on, for example Enterprise Edition >>or Standard Edition and the items IBM quoted on, for example Tivoli, C Compiler, >>and give us the dollars as calculated for a 5 year period including hardware, >>operating system, application software, DBAs and developers, third-party tools >>such as report writers, and support and maintenance contracts. You don't have to >>give exact dollars. Just get us to the nearest $10,000 Canadian. >>No one knows where you work or what companies numbers you might be quoting >>so please don't hide behind an NDA. >>If you've got the goods ... post them. >> >> > > >First of all many in this forum know where I work and it isn't difficult to trace >the IP address since I am posting this from my work place. So I am not going to >write something in direct violation of NDA. > >To answer to ur question:- > >1. It was Oracle's EE. The Standard Edition of Oracle is licensed to work for > only boxes with 2 or less CPUs, a no-no in our case. > Nonsense! This is what causes so many problems between those that favor one product over the other. People posting pure unadulterated nonsense. How can you possibly expect me, or anyone, to believe you actually got a quotation when you post something that has no basis in fact? Go to: http://oraclestore.oracle.com/OA_HTML/ibeCCtpItmDspRte.jsp?a=b&item=293953 and you will find, clearly stated, the following which I quote: "With Oracle Database Standard Edition businesses can cost-effectively develop and deploy all types of applications and deploy them on servers of one to four processors." Do you notice where it says "one to four processors"? It doesn't say 2 it says 4. I would call someone in the Oracle group posting equal nonsense about DB2 if I found it. I fail to understand why people insist on guessing and/or making things up to try to win a point. The facts are what the facts are. And your price comparison, if one actually exists, is between apples and staplers. -- Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Daniel Morgan wrote:- >Meaningless. IDC might well be correct based on the specific situation >they were exploring. I could easily develop a set of criterion that >would make Oracle look like the cheapest. Yeah sure. Why should it concern me. Perhaps u don't read other's post. I also said, that we also recvd quotes for MSSQL,DB2 and Oracle and that was consistent with what IDC said. U want me to disregard that and take ur rant as gospel. >Nonsense! This is what causes so many problems between those that favor >one product over the other. People posting pure unadulterated nonsense. >How can you possibly expect me, or anyone, to believe you actually got >a quotation when you post something that has no basis in fact? Oh I see. I am debating with GOD who can never err (like ur comment on C compiler required for production box). OK I erred. Whether it is 2 CPU or 4CPU it doesn't matter. We have 8 CPU Sun box as our production server. Oracle Standard Edition would not have run. The point is, Oracle quoted for EE and were way more expensive than DB2 or MSSQL. And ur style of debating is classic usenet style of debate:- SNIP all u can't answer and harp on the error of the interlocutor and declare urself the winner. For ur perusal, I am pasting again my reply to ur original BS, which u conveniently avoided except for that 2CPU point. ================================================== To answer to ur question:- 1. It was Oracle's EE. The Standard Edition of Oracle is licensed to work for only boxes with 2 or less CPUs, a no-no in our case. 2. We asked for only DB price since that's what we need. So there was no reason for IBM to quote Tivoli. 3. What is this C compiler? There is no necessity to have C compiler on production box to support stored procedures. You can compile it on your development box and just copy the object files to production. We at present do it for Informix too for datablades. Our development,QA and Production boxes are all same OS based and we deploy C databladed on production where there isn't any compiler. 4. The cost quoted by IBM and O was for same hardware and OS which we mentioned to them, because we plan to retain the existing hardware. MS of course quoted for Windoz based system. 5. Application S/W : N/A in our case. 6. DBAs and developers: This is interesting. Are you trying to suggest that it costs more to hire DB2UDB developers and DBAs. Our developers are all database agnostic. They are C++ and Java experts and talk to DBs using JDBC/ODBC. Our DBAs (including me) support both Informix and SQL Server. 7. third-party tools such as report writers: N/A 8. Support and Maintenance contracts: You may be interested to know that Oracle's maintenance price was significantly higher than DB2 and MSSQL. Their sales rep was stressing that unlike DB2/MSSQL, Oracle's license is not restricted to a single version. So if 9.1 is purchased and maintenance fees is paid regularly, automatic upgrade to 10.x, 11.x is assured for no extra cost. Yeah so?? They are already milking heavily on maintenance. Bottomline: For us, Oracle's TCO was way more than DB2 and MSSQLServer. Before u start ur familiar defence of Oracle, re-read the keyword. It is 'for us'. =========================== Will u mind answering how using the above points u find Oracle's TCO comparable with DB2. Having debunked all ur points, lemme see what u can still offer. Here is my synopsis on this: Oracle has always been obscenely expensive. People buy it not because of its price. They buy it for different reason. Like, the product is good, the company is stable and so on. You can defend Oracle in hundred different ways, I won't dispute it. But you are woefully out of whack when u try to suggest that Oracle is not expensive compared to DB2 and MSSQL server. Shall I post links to articles where it is mentioned that Oracle is under pressure to reduce price for its database product bcos MSSQL and DB2 is taking away its share. Are they all idiots and only u know the true meaning of TCO. rk-

rkusenet wrote: >Daniel Morgan wrote:- > > > >>Meaningless. IDC might well be correct based on the specific situation >>they were exploring. I could easily develop a set of criterion that >>would make Oracle look like the cheapest. >> >> > >Yeah sure. Why should it concern me. > >Perhaps u don't read other's post. I also said, that we also recvd quotes >for MSSQL,DB2 and Oracle and that was consistent with what IDC said. >U want me to disregard that and take ur rant as gospel. > I read your post. All of it. That is how I was able to determine that what you stated as fact was not. And as the "quote" from Oracle obviously doesn't exist why should I, or anyone, presume the quotes from Microsoft or IBM exist? And please don't protest that you do have a quotation from Oracle because, as I clearly demonstrated, you were incorrect in the statement you attributed to Oracle. Had you actually spoken to Oracle they would have informed you Standard Edition would work with more than 2 CPUs and would have quoted you accordingly. So my guess is that you don't even have a quote from IBM either. Perhaps your IT manager does. Perhaps your CFO does. But you don't. Because not once in all of the times I have purchased software have I ever been asked to sign an NDA: Not once! -- Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote :- >But you don't. Because >not once in all of the times I have purchased software >have I ever been asked to sign an NDA: Not once! Not once I have been told that by a s/w industry worker, much less by an academician, that if u include cost of developer and DBA, TCO of Oracle starts equalling TCO of DB2, bcos it means that Oracle developers/DBAs are cheaper to hire than DB2. It is clear that ur opinion on the subject is close to worthless as u have repeatedly demonstrated that u r biased towards Oracle. U have proved what I said earlier. It is not necessary that a biased post towards a product has to come from an employee of IBM or Oracle. rk-