Conference ulysse::rdb_vms_competition

    We dont even support Rdb on Ultrix, so why would you expect us to
    support/port Rdb to OS2?
    Sorry for the sarcasm, could not help it.
    There was a project called Rdb/Server that would have provided
    server support, Rdb, for MSDOS and Ultrix. It was cancelled because
    not enough field test sites could be found, or so I was told. Funny
    thing was all of the NEW business accounts that I spoke to would
    have loved it! I wonder how hard BPM looked?
    The lack of functionality on PCs , re Rdb, is what does us more
    harm than just about anything else in the database market along
    with field ignorance (sales) and poor sales motivation for selling
    software.

How many thousands of times does it have to be pointed out that we don't
talk about futures in notes conferences?

That said, does anyone read Sales Update?  Did anyone see the reference
to the SQL SERVICES =>PROGRAM<= in the July DECtp special issue?

If you need more information on how we intend to address the PC space,
contact Wendy NOVA::Caswell who is a product manager worrying about
these things.

I do understand and respect the policy on futures; however I do beleive 
that such notes help us the field get some inkling on what might be
happening...

Thanx muchly for the info!

-- regards,
   Guy

    Who is discussing futures?
    I see plenty of "wish list" items in this notes file, whats wrong
    with that?
    Rdb/SERVER is history not futures, and SQL Services is an announced
    program, entirely different from what I thought was being asked
    for in the base note, or did I miss something?
    There is a restricted conference on database products as there is
    on hardware products. The difference between the two is that the
    hardware side of DEC, engineering, is willing to peruse that hardware
    notes file whereas the software side of the house (BPM) has expressed
    unwillingness to participate in the software futures notesfile.
    I do respect the fact that "its more work" however it makes the
    job of people like myself more difficult in keeping up to date on
    accurate futures information.
    Attending review meetings is impossible, with a calendar of
    presentationsbooked 6 weeks in advance I cannot attend all the review
    meetins that I would like.
    I know that many PID presentors read this file, what are your thoughts?

    Dont misunderstand me Hal, I dont sell futures, I sell belief in
    the future!That belief in the future is always based upon CURRENT
    product capabilities.
    I read Sales Update etc along with all the trade rags, is part of
    my job. I wonder how many sales people have the time to do that
    especially when DEC itself puts out so many duplicate/redundant
    articles?
    The point is that situations like the one I refer to in #174 would
    not be so frequent if our own Sales force believed in the future
    of some of our most critical software products, as well as
    understanding current capabilities.

re .2

>That said, does anyone read Sales Update?  Did anyone see the reference
>to the SQL SERVICES =>PROGRAM<= in the July DECtp special issue?

I am sorry, but I did not find this information in the Sales Update Vol 20
special issue #1.  Could u please provided page number?

-- thanx,
   Guy

>I am sorry, but I did not find this information in the Sales Update Vol 20
>special issue #1.  Could u please provided page number?

I don't have the paper copy around, but its note 4.7 in {BANZAI,NOVA}::RDB

    The SQL Services is mentioned in a note in the middle of the "Database
    Interoperability Program" article in the SUD. 

    My 2� worth on PC databases:

    I tend to agree with .4, we will not make much headway until we fully
    address PC compatibility.  I work in a field office, and in the last
    year I have seen 6-8 database sales either go down the tubes or we
    never have a chance to compete because we haven't addressed the PC. 

    Example: a local city government will probably throw out Wang and bring
    in Vaxes, partly because of our perceived support for their many PC's.
    Sales team is actively working with Informix because (1) programmers
    only need to learn 1 database for both PC and VAX, and (2) 3rd party
    applications built on Informix.  Sales has asked me to come in and
    "help the informix people understand VMS because all they know is
    Unix"! 

    SQL Services may be great, but at this point it's a little too nebulous
    to help much.  It also seems to be a partial solution in that
    (according to the SUD article) it allows PC applications to access Rdb
    databases but apparently does not provide a user interface or data
    storage on the PC. 

    This week I have been involved with a very hard working account
    team doing their level best to leverage business in a major account
    that is IBM dominated with no VAXen.
    They are trying to leverage around the fact that Oracle is not
    performing well on a 9370. So now there is an opportunity to sell
    VAXen, BUT, the account requires:
    		1.The same user I/F on PCs as well as the VAX.
    		2.A relational database on the PC and the VAX.
    
    The account want to sell Rdb/VMS and not Oracle, however its not
    so "clean" to argue for a 3rd party database on the PC with
    interoperability to Rdb/VMS on the VAX when Oracle argue the one
    database on both platforms and a consistent U/I across those platforms.
    It will be very interesting to see what happens here!