| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1043.1 | Maybe it should be the other way around... | BROKE::HIGGS | SQL is a camel in disguise | Thu Dec 19 1991 17:15 | 9 |
| Given the recent Digital earnings predictions that I saw today in the Vogon News,
where they said that Services and Software made up more than 50% of Digital's
earnings, maybe we should do it the other way around:
Buy Rdb/VMS, and get 15% off a 6000.
I'm not holding my breath...
8^)
|
| 1043.2 | well... | MBALDY::LANGSTON | The secret is strong ears. | Thu Dec 19 1991 19:35 | 13 |
| A sales rep (I mean "account manager") I work with said she has a couple of
deals she's working, one of which she doesn't want to tell me about. I got it
out of her (wasn't difficult): she got a call from an account who saw our ad in
the WSJ about how we're work with Oracle. The customer has a PC-based ORACLE
application, They are looking at moving it to something more robust than PCs,
as I understand it, and want to know what our story is.
Of course they haven't bought anything from us yet.
I don't know what else to say... Maybe there's a 'dark lining' for this 'silver
cloud' of a story?
Bruce
|
| 1043.3 | | BIGUN::ANDERSON | The Unbearable Lightness of Being | Fri Dec 20 1991 00:40 | 5 |
| There is a USA product marketing campaign, driven by VAX product
marketing I think, which gives several options on discount packages.
One of those is the ORACLE one you saw, and there is also an Rdb DEV +
DECtrace + RdbExpert (less 15% of total?) package too. So, its not just
ORACLE - its Rdb too! Read your Sales Updates - its in there somewhere.
|
| 1043.4 | "Reliable" ORACLE? -hmmm- Need answers | JENEVR::RLEE | | Fri Dec 20 1991 06:45 | 16 |
| Did I just see something interesting? ...
The client is looking for something more "reliable"?
Hmmm - anyone do any VAXft competitive testing of Oracle .vs. Rdb?
Q: Was transaction consistency tested in single-point and multi-point
failure modes?
Q: Was recovery consistency tested?
Q: What were the relative roll-forward/roll-backward recovery
elapsed times?
[Shouldn't be much different than normal VAXen... but who knows ...
where there's more processor chatter - possibly less thruput?]
Thinking out loud very late at night ... /bob/
|
| 1043.5 | On my soapbox... | INFACT::BEVIS | Da-di-da-dit, Da-da-di-da | Fri Jan 03 1992 14:00 | 27 |
| RE: .3 O.K., it's Rdb too. But it is still stupid to offer this sort
of an "incentive", especially when you consider that last FY
we had around 0% profit from hardware sales. Not to mention
the fact that where I come from (@INI) we have Oracle out the
yin-yang on customer machines and they won't even TALK about
Rdb alternatives. Completely brainwashed or whatever.
RE: .4 Now this is the sort of thing that we ought to be putting in
OUR ads and press releases, not just how terrific our TPC-A
numbers are. (O.K. I'll admit I haven't seen EVERY Rdb ad
that was ever published - maybe I'm being overly critical).
Seems to me that we never go on offense, just keep on the
defense. Brag long, hard, and loud about what Rdb can do that
other platforms can't. That's what Oracle does (even though
they usually are dancing near the edge of truthfulness).
When you compare performance data, the first thing that goes
through my mind is, "Don't believe it!", because the old saying
"Figures lie and liars figure" usually holds true. Better to
drive home the facts about what we can/they can't do - can't
dispute this sort of tactic nearly as easily (and the CUSTOMER
can independently verify such facts THEMSELVES!).
I know, I know - preaching to the choir.
Don
|