RE: DB2/400 comparisons with other relational databases (specifically Oracle and SQL Server)

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Evidently I'm unable to communicate with you.  I was simply trying to get
you to back up one of your previous statements.

You said: "Its aboubt as good as DB2/400 but is far cheaper and scales
nicely at a
fraction of the cost."

I said: "SQL Server costs either $20,000 per server, or about $450 per
client, depending on your licensing choice.  How many SQL servers does it
take to handle 1000 users?"

You said: "I also said that you could use the NFR(Not for Resale)  for
internal or development use only"

How does that answer my question about the cost of licensing 1000 users?
You're the one who brought up scaling, I was just trying to get something
other than rhetoric as an answer.  It seems either I am unable to frame a
question you understand, or you choose not to answer the questions I ask.
Either way, this becomes a pointless conversation.

Joe


> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Server Dave
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 2:29 PM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: DB2/400 comparisons with other relational databases
> (specifically Oracle and SQL Server)
>
>
> Joe,
> I also said that you could use the NFR(Not for Resale)  for internal or
> development use only--this is the full suite of Microsoft Server products
> and Office XP products.For $249 US you  get around 50 cds of the full
> product-not crippled in any way.