hi
maybe somebody knows a video encoded with corona, would like to see in action ;)

You would not able to watch a Corona video without the codecs. I think this article is just saying that they used .NET Server on the backend to serve WMV 8 encoded content while gaining the benefits of some of the Corona services included in .NET Server, as well as the increase in performance and scalability offered by the new OS.

Great...another corner of the market for Microsoft to obligerate the competition. It's not that I hate Microsoft, but I think that if they need to charge less for their products...

Ok, yeah, Microsoft needs to charge less even though thier server products are always cheaper than Microsoft's competitors.

Well, if their competitors could make a decent product then you wouldn't have to worry

If MS would stop breaking the law there would be room to compete.

You haven't purchased SQL licenses lately, have you? ;-)

IBM DB2 (EE) - $15,226.71, http://www.cdw.com/shop/.../default.asp?EDC=286515
Microsoft SQL Server (EE) - $27,369.06, http://www.cdw.com/shop/.../default.asp?EDC=335218

Ouch. And people wonder why we pay so many taxes :)

fewt, fewt, fewt.

When are you going to learn to stop comparing apples and oranges.

IBM DB2 (EE) - $15,226.71, http://www.cdw.com/shop/.../default.asp?EDC=286515

This is first of all not the current version (this is version 7.1, 7.2 is the current version).
It also include NO processor or client access licences.
(without either or these it is useless)

Now how about the Microsoft product you quoted:
Microsoft SQL Server (EE) - $27,369.06, http://www.cdw.com/shop/.../default.asp?EDC=335218
This IS the current version
It includes an unlimited client one process license.
It also includes 2 years of free upgrades and is only available to Select program customers.

Now let's comapre apples to apples:

IBM DB2 (EE) - $17,769.55
http://www.cdw.com/shop/.../default.asp?EDC=305726
PLUS
IBM DB2 (EE) One processor license - $17,679.80
http://www.cdw.com/shop/.../default.asp?EDC=388025
For a total of $35,449.35

Microsoft SQL Server 2000 (EE) WITH One processor license - $17,997.86
http://www.cdw.com/shop/.../default.asp?EDC=233833

Sorry fewt, but in an apples to apples comparison DB2 comes out to be $17,451.49 LESS expensive.

I could also include Oracle in the comparison....but even with their recent price cuts Oracle is far more expensive than either of the two listed above.

BIG typo above.

It should have read:
Sorry fewt, but in an apples to apples comparison DB2 comes out to be $17,451.49 MORE expensive.

Microsoft SQL Server is roughly HALF the price of DB2 in an even comparison.

See above for a true apples to apples comparison of the prices.

I think fewt got a little confused when he did his searches. The two things he compared are not even remotely comparable.

Sure they are, they are both enterprise class database packages. If you want to get technical PostgreSQL MySQL and several other packages all undercut the competition. I think SQL server is a great solution, however it runs on the wrong platform IMHO.

I never said that Microsoft SQl Server and DB2 were not comparable. Yes, they are both enterprise class database packages.

I said that the two things YOU LISTED were not comparable.

What you listed was an old version of DB2 without ANY process or client licences and tried to compare it to the current version of MS SQL Server with processor linces and two years of free upgrades.

Those two are not comparable.

That's why I listed an accurate comparison. The current version with a one processor license for each.

I thought you had made an honest mistake when you looked up prices and made an invalid comparison as a result. Based on this comment of yours, I now start to suspect that you knew exacly what you were doing and intentionally made a bogus comparison in a lame attempt to claim that DB2 was cheaper.

Either way, 18 grand for a single processor license of SQL Server is quite the expense. Especially when you "accidentally" order 40 million dollars more than you need.

Ah, but what about performance? Is DB2 on a single processor able to handle more connections/load than SQL Server running on Intel? Chances are you might need two or more SQL licenses/boxes to equal the performance you would get out of a properly setup DB2 machine. (Just conjecture, as I've never worked with DB2 personally)

I was quoting the first single processor EEDB packages I found on CDW. I haven't used CDW before, and likely did confuse the two.

Microsoft innovating and releasing new products is criminal...? Sounds f****d up to me.

pfft, you know exactly what I'm talking about don't twist it around to make them look like saints.

Real world tests say no.

In real world tests on comparable processors (not sponsored by either Microsoft or IBM) MSSQL2K is still outperforming DB2.

In a straight unlimited comparison, DB2 is the winner though due to advantages in raw power on the AS/400 platform (but you sure pay for that horepower ... AS/400's aren't cheap)

Might be quite the expense....but it's not out of line at all.

This is one of those areas where you get what you pay for. When you have individual databases over a terabyte in size (something that is becomming more common daily) there are only three realistic options in that arena. Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM. Yes all three cost a lot, but you can't expect to reliably and efficiently host a couple of TB of data on free software.

For those with less stringent requirements (don't need TB databases, active-active clustering, etc.) all 3 have much lower priced options as well.

Actually if you're shocked at these prices, you should try getting a quote from Oracle. We had all three options quoted for active-active clustering on 8 CPU boxes. Quotes went roughly like this: (DB software only, unlimted client access, licensing per CPU, with Internet conntivity licensing)

IBM: approx $150,000 (software cost was lower if we took the AS/400 option, but hardware cost more than made up for it. There were also other considerations that mitigated against AS/400 for this particular project)

Microsoft: approx $96,000

Oracle: (We had to read it THREE times we were so sure it was a typo) $1,200,000 with an addtional annual licensing fee of over $200,000

Ok, no problem then.

You might have had trouble even if you had called CDW directly. Enterprise database software licensing is one of those bizarre arcane areas still. Places like CDW usually have separate specialists on staff to help people figure out exactly what licenses they do and do not need. A real good example is the DB2 software I quoted. How many people would have thought that the $17,000 base software package would include NO licensing whatsoever? You just paid almost $18K for software that you aren't legally able to connect to yet until you buy an addtional set of licenses.

Here's some more examples of how confusing it can be:

IBM offers you the choice of per processor or per client licensing. Which is least costly for a particular customer?

Microsoft used to offer both, but eliminated one of the two from their Enterprise Edition offerings. What options are left? (Actually they used to have yet another option that has also been phased out)

Oracle gives you unlimited client access with their per processor licensing. But did you know that if your web page connects to that database you have to buy an additonal Internet Client Access license from them?

And of course all three seem to love to change their licensing rules on a frequent basis.

Agreed, we have someone dedicated to chasing licensing so the SA team doesn't have to. I do know that we just spent an additional $140k because we added an option to one of our oracle servers that wasn't on the enterprise agreement. I don't know that I would trust SQL to the 1+tb database market yet, though it works very well sub 100GB IMHO.

No, right here you are just basically spreading BS, and that's ALL it is.

We ran simulations of 1+TB databases and found SQl Server to be a better performing and more stable choice than Oracle (in our application at least)

We now have 2 separate real world databases over a TB each on SQL 2K and have been extremely happy with it.

Really, you mean to tell me that they are NOT GUiLTY?

If SQL would run on HP/UX then it may have been a contender. SQL still can't touch big iron, simplyh because it's limited to PC hardware. (This may change as Itanium rolls over every other platform out there though.)

You are correct, Fewt. Because of MS doing "whatever", ACCORDING TO THE COURTS, Ms has *NO* viable competition- Not Apple/Mac, Not any kind of Linux, no nothing, as it would be prohibatively to expensive to move to anything else. LOL!!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

How many viable desktop options do you get when you call Dell? (Keep the build it yourself comments to yourselves, you need to dumb yourselves down to simple computer users that don't know what a screw driver is much less a power supply connector.)

'nuff said.

Viable options? None.

Apple restricts third part resellers so compainies like Dell do not have the option of offering them.

As for Linux, Dell already tried that. Commerical response was so overwhelmingly bad that Dell chose to stop offering it due to "lack of consumer interest"

Or do you feel that Dell should be required to offer alternatives even if there is so little consumer interest that they lose money just trying to offer/support them?

I don't believe that Dell made a reasonable attempt in the first place.

What I think he meant (and what I would have said) is that your statement "If MS would stop breaking the law there would be room to compete" assumes that the ONLY reason for a lack of decent competing products is Microsoft's illegal activities.

That simply isn't true. All that can be said is that it is ONE factor. Eliminating that one factor does not automatically guarantee that "...their competitors could make a decent product..." as mrastudent said.

Agreed. Our options and choices would have possibly been quite different if this project had been targeted at the HP/UX servers instead.

That's why I try to be very careful when comparing MSSQL/Oracle/DB2.

On comparable hardware MSSQL is the leader right now.

On unlimted single hardware DB2 is the winner because you can beef up the hardware the most there.

On unlimited parallel hardware it's a horse race between DB2 and MSSQL, but becomes a moot point rapidly because both IBM and Microsoft are really stretching the definition of "unlimited parallel hardware". The test beds they both use for benchmarking are extremely unrealistic for any real world application.

Oracle has surprised a lot of people by NOT overtaking MSSQL on performance with their latest release. Might happen with the next round though since based on what I have seen so far, Oracle is putting more of an effort into performance for the next generation, where MS is focusing more on functionality.

Even you have to admit that it is the largest factor. BEOS was a fine product, as was OS/2.

More on security, at least, if they do what they promeise.

You're entitled to any opinion you want (including that the earth is actually a giant ping pong ball)

Do you have evidence other than your own unshakable belief that given a choice everyone in the world would choose Linux?

Because it sure makes more sense that Dell made a reasonable attempt and that there wasn't demand for it than it does to claim that Dell spent all that money revamping the hot burn and hot test lines, spent all that money on advertising, spent all that money on support, and then just decided to give up without making a reasonable attempt.

No, I simply admit that it was ONE factor.

If history has shown us anything it's that the quality of the product does NOT determine it's success. The quality of it's MARKETING does. (Beta was technically superior to VHS for example)

OS/2 and BEOS both had lousy marketing behind them.

Quite frankly I think that OS/2 and BEOS would have both failed even if Microsoft had never broken the law.

Security in SQL Server hasn't been more of an issue than in Oracle.

There's been a lot of press about he wormthat's currently hitting SQL Server, but the vulnerability it explaoits is present in Oracle as well. If you put a datbase server up on a public machine and use a blank sa password, then you're vulnerable whether it's MSSQL or Oracle.

Tell me, did you ever see an advertisement for a Dell Linux desktop? They made no reasonable attempt and that's the bottom line.

"Quite frankly I think that OS/2 and BEOS would have both failed even if Microsoft had never broken the law. "

Well, then I guess they would absolutely have failed since you think so. :-P

It also looks for simple passwords if I understand the worm correctly, if your SQL server has a simple admin password then fire your admin IMHO. ;-)

Yes. I did.

We recived Dell promotional materials for both Dell Linux Precision Workstations and Dell Linux PowerEdge and PowerApp Servers.

I have not seen the desktop or notebook promotional materials.

Well then no you haven't.

Hey, I'm the one who's remaining open minded on the issue.

Illegal acts wre *ONE* factor in their demise.

They *might* or *might not* have failed if there had been no illegal acts.

You're the one with the crystal ball telling me that I have to agree that it was *the larget* factor and that they *would* have succeded otherwise.

I wasn't aware that it looked for more than just blank passwords, but it doesn't surprise me.

Bottom line is still the same though.....MSSQL is no more or less vulnerable to it than Oracle or any other SQL implementation. Though for some reason all of the news articles refer to it as a "Microsoft SQL Server vulnerablility" It is not. It is a vulnerablity in *any* SQL spec comliant implementaion from any vendor where the sa password has been left blank (or even just really simple apparently)

The only area where I hold Microsoft out for criticism there is that up until SQL2K they made it far too easy for stupid admins to install with a blank sa password. They foolishly assumed that anyone paying thousands of dollars for the software would actually read the warnings in the documentation. Fortunately they have now realized that far too many admins do fall into the "dumber than dirt" category and have taken measures to protect them from their own stupidity.

Did I say that they would have? I don't recall saying that.

Agreed.

Actually, yes I have.

The Dell Precision Workstation line is indeed a desktop.

Though I do like your logic that just because you and I didn't get sent sales fliers for the OptiPlex and Dimension lines, that they must not exist.

Common sense pretty much dictates this one. Which is more likely:

1. Dell made a reasonable attempt at offering Linux and found that there was insufficient demand for it. (Which that have publicly stated)

or

2. (fewt's theory) Dell spent tons of money doing this just as a lark and gave it up and wrote the money off without ever making a reasonable attempt to try and make it succeed.

FYI, you can still get Linux preloaded on ANY machine from Dell you want (desktop, laptop, server) It's just no longer an advertised option (except on servers) due to lack of demand.

Actually, when I first heard about it (newsforge I believe) I went right to dell's website looking for them. I had to jump through hoops to find them, that's not what I call proper marketing but whatever. You really think that you know everything don't you.

In previous threads you most ceratinly have. We had this very same argument there too.

You stated flat out that these other OS's would have succeded if it weren't for Microsoft's intervention (thread was back in the January/February time fram I believe)

OHHH I get it, I said it a long time ago. I don't remember saying it then either, refresh my memory please.

Actually its even worse than that....
By defualt SQL leaves the system administrator account password blank.
and thats what the worm takes advantage of.....

Yeah, jump through a ton of hoops.

If you're configuring a server or a workstation it's one of the check boxes.

or you just go to www.dell.com/linux

Pretty difficult.

A bit out of date aren't you.

SQL Server defaulting to a blank password hasn't been true for over two years.

Nice try, but it wasn't that simple back 6 mos ago.

I'd rephrase that, lots of shops are still using SQL 7. Though MS has fixed the issue not everyone knows about it (unfortunately).

"You really think that you know everything don't you."

Well, apparently I know simple browser navigation better than you do.

From the first dat that Dell announced it the option was right there under "Operatign System choice" when you configured a server.

The www.dell.com/linux URL was put up at the same time.

Clicking "search" on the main www.dell.com web page and typing in "linux" as a search term also worked right from the day of the announcment.

Oh, it was there under servers. No kidding? WOW, and all this time I thought the thread was about desktops!

Sorry, I thought you were referring to ANY Linux on Dell options.

I guess that excuses you for your inablity to find www.dell.com/linux or to type "linux" into the search box on the Dell web site.

Your quote: "Actually, when I first heard about it (newsforge I believe) I went right to dell's website looking for them. I had to jump through hoops to find them,..."

If a simplke search box is "jumping through hoops" then your skills are seriously lacking from what you have claimed. Even Grandma knows how to use the search box.

Not that simple 6 months ago? ROFL
Those EXACT resources I listed have been there for OVER TWO YEARS.

You incompetence in accessing them does not indicate anything EXCEPT your incompetence.

www.dell.com/linux page was created on May 26, 1999 (actually just before it) the option in the OS list was available at the same time.
http://www.dell.com/us/e...s_1999-05-26-rr-000.htm

Face it fewt, the information was there. You just weren't able to do a simple search, type in a simple URL, or read a list of choices on a new system.

Ok, lets try this a little slower so you can understand me.

There was no www.dell.com/linux back then.

Hmm, where does it list desktops? Surely you know the difference between a desktop and a high end workstation.

Mind you, I am not talking about business computing at all. Show me the consumer desktops.

Wait, they did announce desktops on that page, my bad. Too bad you had to do a search to find it. They didn't market their desktop line properly, and that's the bottom line. You can keep arguing with me all you want, just like you argue with everyone else. You can also attack me all you want but it won't change the fact that Dell didn't properly market their Linux line.

Wow fewt, I didn't really think you'd want to add "totally lacking in memory" to your list of claimed qualifications.

March 14, 2002 fewt said "The world would have been a better place without Windows, Macintosh and OS/2 would have florished..."

Note that you did not say *might* have flourished. You said *would have* flourished.

You can search for the rest of the quotes yourself. (such as the January/February thread)

Though if your mrmory is THAT bad, you might need to ask someone here for help with how to use that "search" feature.
(It apparenly confused you too much on Dell's website)

Microsoft can no more control people installing or using old versions of products that had security design flaws than can the Linux Kernel Developemnt Team.

I'll stick with the statement that SQL Server has not had that problem for two years now, just as I would that Linux has not had a certain root exploit in the kernel for almost a year now. In both cases a user choosing to install an older version of the product would still introduce the original flaw.

(In case you were curious the root exploit I am referring to was:
http://www.sfu.ca/~siege...-security/msg00078.html)

Actually you are now taking what I said out of context. If there was no Windows they probably would have flourished. I see you are becoming more like your usenet self every day. Keep the personal attacks at home wendor.

Yes, I am aware of it.

Wow, Looks like I'm mistaken and http://www.dell.com/linux has existed for some time. Oh well, I stand firm in my belief that they did not market it properly. Try all you want, as far as I'm concerned the conversation is over.

The Linux option was right there on the configuration/selection page for consumer desktops as well. Right up until Dell pulled it due to lack of consumer interest.

Guess you're still having trouble reading.

You have claimed repeatedly that "Dell didn't properly market their Linux line"
You, however, have come up with nothing but your own opinion to support that claim, though you have tried and have been blatantly proven wrong several times now. (Such as your claim that the informationw asn't there 6 months ago, etc.)

Fewt, as I've said all along, you're free to delude yourself all you want.

Because now that the evidence has shown that the facts are against you, that's all you have left. Delusion.

But I'm sure a lot of people have found this thread amusing.
(I think this is a fairly accurate summary of your changing position in this thread)

The information wasn't there six months ago.
Oh wait, it's been there for two years.

It was difficult to find. (your phrase was "jump though hoops")
Oh wait, it's listed as a configuration option and only required a seach on "linux" to get all of the information.

It wasn't availabale on desktops.
Oh wait, yes it was.

Well, I only meant consumer desktops, not business desktops. (though you never said anything of the sort before that)
Oh wait, they had those too.

Well, I'm going to ignore the facts and sulk and stick with my delusions. (Well, every statement you made about Dell was proven wrong, but you still insist that that they never made a reasonable attempt)

Was that a fairly accurate representation?

No, you're rewording your statement.

In your original post you said what I claimed you did....that they *WOULD* have flourished if it were not for Microsoft/Windows.

Now you're suddenly changing it to that they *PROBABLY* would have florurished if it were not for Microsoft/Windows.

See the difference. In one you said that it *WOULD* have happend. In the other you say that it *PROBABLY WOULD* have happened.

You said "Did I say that they would have? I don't recall saying that."
I provided a quoite in which you said EAXCTLY that "...Macintosh and OS/2 would have florished..."

Once again...the evidence and facts are against you.

What facts? Oh they put up a website? WOW maybe if I put up a website maybe I'll make a fortune too. The only dilutions here are your own, the very comment you replied to was my realization that I had been mistaken. Funny how you ignored that and instead decided to talk garbage some more. Are you on drugs or something?

listen troll, I admitted that I was wrong on one point only. As for Dell the proof is in the pudding, if they had marketed it properly it would have been sucessful and that's the bottom line. Go back to usenet where you belong.

The "facts" I am referring to are the ones disproving your claims.

Your original claim was that Dell never made a resonable attempt to providing a Linux option.

You have tried to "prove" that several times by claiming that the information was not available from Dell, that the marketing materials didn't exist, that the option was not presented, or that the informationw as difficult to get at.

The "facts" have shown that every single one of these claims was 100% false.

So the "delusion" here is you thinking that anyone will buy your bogus claim of "Dell never made a reasonable attempt" after you have been proven wrong on literally EVERY single thing you used to support that claim.

You haven't proven anything other than that they did have a website. Go to hell.

"...they had marketed it properly it would have been sucessful and that's the bottom line."

ROFL.

Good thing that you don't own your own business if this is your idea of how things work.

Bottom line is exacly what they have publicly stated. They did market it proerly, and there is NOT the level on consumer demand that you personally think that there should be.

I'll believe them LONG before I believe you.

They actaually attempted it and mesured consumer demand firsthand.
You have absolutely nothing but your opinion to back your claims of what demand would be.

As for the rest of your post "I admitted that I was wrong on one point only", which point was that?

You claimed that the informationw as not ont he dell website six months ago. That was proven untrue because the information has been there for over two years.

You claimed that the information was difficult to find and that you had to "jump through hoops" to find it. That was proven untrue as a simple search on "linux" brings all of it up.

You claimed that they did not offer Linux on consumer desktops. That was untrue.

And on, and on, and on.

So if you only admitted you were wrong on one point only, then which of the ones that you were PROVEN wrong on are you not admitting?

Done guy..

Talk all you want, your comments will go unanswered.

No. I proved that:

They have had that website for over two years (you claimed it wasn't there six months ago)

The information is easily accessible though a search on the term "linux" (you claimed that you had to "jump through hoops" to find it)

Linux was offered as an option for consumer disktops (you claimed it wasn't)

and so on.

That will be amazing if true. You seem to have a real hard time passing up the opportunity for one more personal attack.

As for my comments going unanswered, that almost always have been even if you do post. The vast majority of the time you resort to personal attacks rather than addressing any of the issues I brought up.

Or you post outright incorrect information.
Such as the baove portion of this thread where you repeatedly made untrue claims about Dell in an attempt to support your original baseless claim.

Of course you're done.

We all knew you were "done" when you resorted to posting blatantly incorrect information in a halfhearted attempt to support your position.

Way to have confidence! ;) Yeah its been running for 2 months but, the first one was a disaster! ;)

I didnt notice a difference....