Re: informix market share
"DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug.org> wrote in message news:1133072683.547964@yasure... > xiaoxin wrote: > > The list price of IDS is about 20% more than oracle EE. No one is > > more expensive than oracle, when it comes to database. > > While that may have been true in the past. And is certainly a > common myth today. It is not reality today as you found out. > > The truth, as I understand it, is that Oracle salespeople have been > told to NEVER lose a deal based on price. If a buyer pays more for > Oracle then the fault is entirely theirs. > > But wouldn't a more accurate comparison of IDS to Oracle be with > Oracle's Standard Edition? Also, I thought that Oracle Standard Edition had a limit on the number of processors in a multi-processor system that you could run it on. Is that not true?
Madison Pruet wrote: > "DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug.org> wrote in message > news:1133072683.547964@yasure... > >>xiaoxin wrote: >> >>>The list price of IDS is about 20% more than oracle EE. No one is >>>more expensive than oracle, when it comes to database. >> >>While that may have been true in the past. And is certainly a >>common myth today. It is not reality today as you found out. >> >>The truth, as I understand it, is that Oracle salespeople have been >>told to NEVER lose a deal based on price. If a buyer pays more for >>Oracle then the fault is entirely theirs. >> >>But wouldn't a more accurate comparison of IDS to Oracle be with >>Oracle's Standard Edition? > > Also, I thought that Oracle Standard Edition had a limit on the number of > processors in a multi-processor system that you could run it on. Is that > not true? Here is Oracle's exact verbiage from their web site: Oracle Database Standard Edition may only be used on machines which have the ability to run a maximum of four processor cores or on a cluster of machines supporting up to a maximum of four processor cores per cluster. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
DA Morgan wrote: > Here is Oracle's exact verbiage from their web site: > > Oracle Database Standard Edition may only be used on machines which have > the ability to run a maximum of four processor cores or on a cluster of > machines supporting up to a maximum of four processor cores per cluster. So do you still stand by your comparison to SE? Are you alleging that IDS' multithreaded engine can only exploit 4 processors? Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab
Serge Rielau wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: > >> Here is Oracle's exact verbiage from their web site: >> >> Oracle Database Standard Edition may only be used on machines which >> have the ability to run a maximum of four processor cores or on a >> cluster of machines supporting up to a maximum of four processor cores >> per cluster. > > So do you still stand by your comparison to SE? Are you alleging that > IDS' multithreaded engine can only exploit 4 processors? > > Cheers > Serge I didn't make the comparison ... I asked a question ... too nuanced for you? Still looking for someone to point me to a list of features included in IDS with a comparison against SE and EE so I can see for myself whether the comparison is valid. The arguments I've seen, so far, would make MS Access a reasonable competitor for IDS: No limit on CPUs. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
DA Morgan wrote: > Serge Rielau wrote: > I didn't make the comparison ... I asked a question ... too nuanced > for you? *lol* I quote: "But wouldn't a more accurate comparison of IDS to Oracle be with Oracle's Standard Edition?" Daniel, I may not be a native speaker, but I know the different between a question and suggestion. "Wouldn't it be accurate to say that you are a hypocrite?" .. not that I'm saying you are of course... ;-) -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab