rkusenet wrote:

>"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote:-
>
>
>
>>There isn't a single person in any of these usenet groups that has
>>any first hand knowledge of the TCO for any of these products.
>>Oh we can all quote this study or that purchased by this company or
>>that to support some proposition.
>>But no two compies are buying the same hardware, operating system,
>>network routers, databases, applications, employees,
>>etc. so costs vary by definition. TCO is something invented by people
>>in marketing and advertising departments just like
>>benchmarks. It is a mechanism for selling products to those that
>>don't or won't do their own math and testing.
>>
>>
>
>I have seen IDC report comparing the TCO of Oracle/SQLSERVER/DB2 and it
>shows Oracle to be the most expensive significantly.
>
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?

>For my company, I have also seen quotations for the above three which shows
>Oracle to be the most expensive by a clear margin. Had it not been for NDA,
>I would have quoted the figure here. This is just the price of license
>and maintenance.
>
>Oracle's price may not be an issue to big corporations, not for small
>companies.
>
>rk-
>
>
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.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

"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.

>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.

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'.


rk-

"rkusenet" <rkusenet@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<bks9qk$59tac$1@ID-75254.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> 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.

Oh Daniel's got this thing about DB2 needing a plethora of expensive C
compilers and Tivoli to work properly. We know it's a "thing" of his
because he keeps repeating it in various threads on and on and on ad
nauseum, even though it's not actually true.

In fact, although I've been working with DB2 UDB for many years at
several sites, I have yet to work with Tivoli. Admittedly, at one
site we did once have to purchase a £60 Microsoft C++ compiler, which
completely blew the TCO estimates.

Except that he's not got an axe to grind has he? So it must all be
true after all.


DG

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_HTM...=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/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Database Guy wrote:

>"rkusenet" <rkusenet@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<bks9qk$59tac$1@ID-75254.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>Oh Daniel's got this thing about DB2 needing a plethora of expensive C
>compilers and Tivoli to work properly. We know it's a "thing" of his
>because he keeps repeating it in various threads on and on and on ad
>nauseum, even though it's not actually true.
>
>In fact, although I've been working with DB2 UDB for many years at
>several sites, I have yet to work with Tivoli. Admittedly, at one
>site we did once have to purchase a £60 Microsoft C++ compiler, which
>completely blew the TCO estimates.
>
>Except that he's not got an axe to grind has he? So it must all be
>true after all.
>
>
>DG
>
>
I kept mentioning them only because no-one here has been willing to
acknowledge that some things
included in one product may cost extra in another. I grabbed two
examples. I could have grabbed two
different examples: Or ten. It isn't the examples themselves that have
value. Rather the fact that one, in
performing a price comparison, must be comparing two entities configured
to have equal capabilities.

I presume you'd think it smart to buy an 18 wheeler rather than a
Porsche for your car because the
18 wheeler cost less. This may come as a shock to you but at the
university we don't teach product
loyalty as part of our curriculum. That is one of the values of
something we treasure called academic freedom.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Mark Townsend wrote:

> Daniel Morgan wrote:
>
>> he does seem a bit less paranoiac about it all but I assume that is
>> personal trait rather than something related to his
>
> remembering to take his medication ?
>
> Yours,
> Comfortably Numb

You can talk!

--
Ciao,
Comfortably Dumb

"Ogni homo me guarda come fosse una testa de cazi"

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/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

> The Standard Edition of Oracle is licensed to work for
> only boxes with 2 or less CPUs

4 or less.

Mark Townsend wrote:

> 4 or less.

That's a typical pro-Oracle rant of the type I've come to expect from you,
pure marketing waffle without any kind of factual basis. You consistently
take what people say and distort it to your own ends, making inflammatory
statements like this. )

--
Ciao,
The Obnoxious One

"Ogni homo me guarda come fosse una testa de cazi"