Memories . . . .

0 views
Skip to first unread message

John Carlson

unread,
Nov 22, 2002, 10:16:17 AM11/22/02
to

Obnoxio The Clown

unread,
Nov 22, 2002, 11:03:00 AM11/22/02
to
John Carlson came forth and spake, saying:

> http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=Informix

"In this instance the government has wrongly charged a man who did nothing
more than act as a responsible corporate leader."

Wow! What does an irresponsible corporate leader do?

--

Warm wishes (or KMA, depending on the tone of my post)
Obnoxio

"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien à dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche

rkusenet

unread,
Nov 22, 2002, 10:47:06 AM11/22/02
to

"John Carlson" <john_c...@whsmithusa.com> wrote :

> http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=Informix

Phil White is responsible for the demise of Informix.
If Informix did not get into the financial mess in 1997,
by now it would have been as strong as Oracle.

I still remember 1-Apr-1997, the day Informix announced that
it is going to miss 1997Q1 earnings by a big margin. Few days
later it revealed earnings restatement. From that day, it never
recovered. What a pity. A great product destined to die.


Munaf Razzak

unread,
Nov 22, 2002, 1:53:07 PM11/22/02
to

Enron !!!!

Tim Schaefer

unread,
Nov 22, 2002, 7:34:06 PM11/22/02
to
One down 4 to go.

I will pop champagne when Bob F. gets his.
Not mention the Frenchman and the rest of that lot.

Thanks for this news, it made my day.

:-)

Tim

"John Carlson" <john_c...@whsmithusa.com> wrote in message news:3dde4a05...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=Informix

Malcolm Garbett

unread,
Nov 25, 2002, 3:49:05 AM11/25/02
to

So why do so many contributors dislike IBM?

-----Original Message-----
From: john_c...@whsmithusa.com
[SMTP:john_c...@whsmithusa.com]
Sent: 22 November 2002 15:16
To: inform...@iiug.org
Subject: Memories . . . .

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=Informix

Malcolm Weallans

unread,
Nov 25, 2002, 5:18:41 AM11/25/02
to

The most amazing thing is that a San Jose local paper is so
well-informed about Informix nowadays.

"The revelations of fraud inside Informix, now known as Ascential
Software"

I guess the IBM PR guys must have paid them a lot to suppress the IBM
link ir that Informix marketing was more useless than even we thought
they were. :-)

Malcolm

-----Original Message-----
From: John Carlson [mailto:john_c...@whsmithusa.com]
Sent: 22 November 2002 15:16
To: inform...@iiug.org
Subject: Memories . . . .


http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=Informix

DISCLAIMER
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for
the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be
intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or
contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any
errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a
result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please
request a hard-copy version.

Andrew Hamm

unread,
Nov 25, 2002, 9:19:00 PM11/25/02
to
Malcolm Garbett wrote:
> So why do so many contributors dislike IBM?
>

Because they are not bloody treating the product with due respect.

They are not actively marketing it. In fact, if you ask for it, you'll get a
DB/2 salesman chewing on your ear. It sends a very strong signal that the
product is in it's death throws, when nothing could be (or should be)
further from the truth. A lot of people have a lot invested in Informix
including their careers so it's very expensive and risky to be forced by
circumstance to move on. If I'm forced on by lack of support for Informix
then I'll move to Oracle and soldier against DB/2 just out of spite.

Try going to the "Informix" web site. Submit a query. See how many hops you
can make before you are presented with a DB/2 solution to whatever your
query was. Most people achieve zero hops before this happens.

They bought the damn product so it's theirs. Why TF is it such a bad thing
if Informix is sent out into the sales force and maybe wins a few sales
against DB/2? It would only prove they made a wise choice and will keep the
dollars flowing so why treat Informix like a bastard unwelcome child,
especially after spending 1 billion to get it in the first place?


Neil Truby

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 3:38:50 AM11/26/02
to
"Andrew Hamm" <ah...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:arulo6$m9ae3$1...@ID-79573.news.dfncis.de...

> They bought the damn product so it's theirs. Why TF is it such a bad thing
> if Informix is sent out into the sales force and maybe wins a few sales
> against DB/2?

Don't shoot the messenger here, or think that I'm in any way going soft on
IBM .... but I would specualte that the answer to this question is that,
strategically, they would rather lose sales that IDS might help them secure
or retain than be seen to be sending a "confused" marketing message for
their Data Management "portfolio".


Paul Watson

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 4:10:57 AM11/26/02
to
But they need to pickup on Andrew's 'out of spite' comment -
there is no way, given the current IBM situation, would I
move to DB2 - it would be Oracle, and it would be out of spite!

--
Paul Watson #
Oninit Ltd # Growing old is mandatory
Tel: +44 1436 672201 # Growing up is optional
Fax: +44 1436 678693 #
www.oninit.com #

Andy Lennard

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 4:14:04 AM11/26/02
to
In message <arsuo1$iu$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com>, Malcolm Weallans
<MWEA...@lqgroup.org.uk> writes

>
>The most amazing thing is that a San Jose local paper is so
>well-informed about Informix nowadays.
>
>"The revelations of fraud inside Informix, now known as Ascential
>Software"
>
>I guess the IBM PR guys must have paid them a lot to suppress the IBM
>link ir that Informix marketing was more useless than even we thought
>they were. :-)
>
>Malcolm
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Carlson [mailto:john_c...@whsmithusa.com]
>Sent: 22 November 2002 15:16
>To: inform...@iiug.org
>Subject: Memories . . . .
>
>
>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=Informix
>

Perhaps if he's cleared IBM will start to market IDS?

Still, I like the concept of 45 days in December. That'll be some party
between Christmas and New Year!


--
Andrew Lennard an...@kontron.demon.co.uk

Malcolm Garbett

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 5:24:14 AM11/26/02
to

I just wondered. Thanks for explaining.

Malcolm.

They bought the damn product so it's theirs. Why TF is it such a bad


thing
if Informix is sent out into the sales force and maybe wins a few
sales

Tim Schaefer

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 6:40:10 AM11/26/02
to
I doubt seriously you would move to Oracle out of spite. Try DB2 and Oracle,
and you will find DB2 much more to your liking, especially if you have Informix
experience. Oracle is so far removed from standard thinking, even Microsoft
SQL-Server is more attractive in a world without Informix.

:-)

You would have created more pain than you can imagine moving to Oracle. The
pricing, the architecture, the nomenclature, everything about Oracle is so
vastly different from everything else out there. It sits in its own pile.

BTW I've yet to see anything in Informix **today** that makes it sooooooo
compelling that it could be a choice without marketing behind it. In the
current world economy you have to go with products that have a marketed
message, or you won't get the support you need, internally or externally.
If IBM doesn't even talk about Informix, what does that tell you about how
they support it and think about it?

Tim

"Paul Watson" <pa...@oninit.com> wrote in message news:3DE33AA1...@oninit.com...

Malcolm Weallans

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 6:45:05 AM11/26/02
to

From the small number of contributors on this list compared to the
numbers of users out there I suspect that the attitude of the "silent
majority" is "I don't give a damn". Many of them will make the decision
as to what product to use next in the same way they always have. It
will be price/performance/availability issues as ever. And I don't see
any way that Informix will win in that decision anymore. IBM price it
higher than DB2. Although the performance is better the performance of
the company behind it leaves a lot to be desired. And availability?
Have any of you tried to get a new release out of Informix recently.
Pulling teeth is easier!

regards

Malcolm

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Watson [mailto:pa...@oninit.com]
Sent: 26 November 2002 09:11
To: inform...@iiug.org
Subject: Re: Memories . . . .

DISCLAIMER

John Carlson

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 9:12:57 AM11/26/02
to
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:45:05 -0000, "Malcolm Weallans" <MWEA...@lqgroup.org.uk> wrote:

>
>From the small number of contributors on this list compared to the
>numbers of users out there I suspect that the attitude of the "silent
>majority" is "I don't give a damn". Many of them will make the decision
>as to what product to use next in the same way they always have. It
>will be price/performance/availability issues as ever. And I don't see
>any way that Informix will win in that decision anymore. IBM price it
>higher than DB2. Although the performance is better the performance of
>the company behind it leaves a lot to be desired. And availability?
>Have any of you tried to get a new release out of Informix recently.
>Pulling teeth is easier!
>


I'll be ordering an upgrade to 9.30 in the next few weeks . . . thanks for the warning.


John Carlson

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 9:13:36 AM11/26/02
to
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 06:40:10 -0500, "Tim Schaefer" <desig...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I doubt seriously you would move to Oracle out of spite. Try DB2 and Oracle,
>and you will find DB2 much more to your liking, especially if you have Informix
>experience. Oracle is so far removed from standard thinking, even Microsoft
>SQL-Server is more attractive in a world without Informix.
>

Even if it means working on a mainframe / AS400?


Rob Vorbroker

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 9:19:46 AM11/26/02
to

To echo Tim's underlying comment - no piece of IT Stuff (RDBMS, Software,
Hardware, etc.) is compelling to purchase if it has no marketing.

Can we have a New Orleans style funeral when the IBM Informix Legacy
products
are gone? Mournful band that kicks into an all night party!
Just a thought...

Rob Vorbroker

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-inf...@iiug.org
[mailto:owner-inf...@iiug.org]On Behalf Of Tim Schaefer
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 6:40 AM
To: inform...@iiug.org
Subject: Re: Memories . . . .

I doubt seriously you would move to Oracle out of spite. Try DB2 and
Oracle,
and you will find DB2 much more to your liking, especially if you have
Informix
experience. Oracle is so far removed from standard thinking, even Microsoft
SQL-Server is more attractive in a world without Informix.

:-)

You would have created more pain than you can imagine moving to Oracle. The
pricing, the architecture, the nomenclature, everything about Oracle is so
vastly different from everything else out there. It sits in its own pile.

BTW I've yet to see anything in Informix **today** that makes it sooooooo
compelling that it could be a choice without marketing behind it. In the
current world economy you have to go with products that have a marketed
message, or you won't get the support you need, internally or externally.
If IBM doesn't even talk about Informix, what does that tell you about how
they support it and think about it?

Tim

"Paul Watson" <pa...@oninit.com> wrote in message
news:3DE33AA1...@oninit.com...

Colin Bull

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 9:43:05 AM11/26/02
to

Rob Vorbroker wrote


>
> To echo Tim's underlying comment - no piece of IT Stuff (RDBMS, Software,
> Hardware, etc.) is compelling to purchase if it has no marketing.
>
> Can we have a New Orleans style funeral when the IBM Informix Legacy
> products
> are gone? Mournful band that kicks into an all night party!
> Just a thought...
>

That will not be until the revenue from maintenance gets to be less than the cost of the support
personnel for the dying products. That could be 5, 10 or 20 years time.
Until then there will be a gradually reducing number of possible attendees. In the end there will be just 2 or 3
qualifiees.

I think the party should be before then :-))


Colin Bull
c.b...@VideoNetworks.com

Manel Falcó

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 10:34:52 AM11/26/02
to

I agree. We've been waiting more than a month for the 9.3.UC3

Regards,
Manel

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Malcolm Weallans [mailto:MWEA...@lqgroup.org.uk]
Enviado el: martes, 26 de noviembre de 2002 12:45
Para: Paul Watson; inform...@iiug.org
Asunto: RE: Memories . . . .


From the small number of contributors on this list compared to the
numbers of users out there I suspect that the attitude of the "silent
majority" is "I don't give a damn". Many of them will make the decision
as to what product to use next in the same way they always have. It
will be price/performance/availability issues as ever. And I don't see
any way that Informix will win in that decision anymore. IBM price it
higher than DB2. Although the performance is better the performance of
the company behind it leaves a lot to be desired. And availability?
Have any of you tried to get a new release out of Informix recently.
Pulling teeth is easier!

regards

Malcolm

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Watson [mailto:pa...@oninit.com]
Sent: 26 November 2002 09:11

To: inform...@iiug.org
Subject: Re: Memories . . . .

DISCLAIMER

Tim Schaefer

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 11:57:52 AM11/26/02
to
John,

I don't know about mainframe(s) and DB2, however, in taking a serious
look at
DB2 I found it to be much more compatible with other database products that
are quite popular.

DB2 works "more like" Informix, Sybase, MySQL, etc than Oracle. DB2
also has a
better architecture than Oracle, and that architecture is more
compatible with an Informix
world view than Oracle. So, the point is, if you really want to start
over, totally, and are
not interested in leveraging anything from Informix, go Oracle. Oracle
has a huge learning
curve, huge installation, and huge price. Oracle has been found to have
some serious
architectural limitations that are well-documented.

On the other hand DB2 has been reported to be easy to learn, easy to
use. Personally I'm
lazy, so I go for the "easy" part. :-) Seriously DB2 enjoys a
shared-nothing clustering scheme
for data warehousing like Informix XPS so they have found favor with me
on that. Performance
is another question, and I just don't know how well DB2 is on the
performance side, perhaps
OTC has something to say about that. It does appear though that getting
"medicre" products
( IBM = I Build Mediocrity ) to perform better has been a function of
throwing better hardware
at the problem, so performance may be better than what I've heard in the
past.

Tim

Andrew Hamm

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 5:59:46 PM11/26/02
to
Tim Schaefer wrote:
> I doubt seriously you would move to Oracle out of spite. Try DB2 and
> Oracle, and you will find DB2 much more to your liking, especially if
> you have Informix experience. Oracle is so far removed from standard
> thinking, even Microsoft SQL-Server is more attractive in a world
> without Informix.
>
> :-)
>
> You would have created more pain than you can imagine moving to
> Oracle. The pricing, the architecture, the nomenclature, everything
> about Oracle is so vastly different from everything else out there.
> It sits in its own pile.
>
> BTW I've yet to see anything in Informix **today** that makes it
> sooooooo compelling that it could be a choice without marketing
> behind it. In the current world economy you have to go with products
> that have a marketed message, or you won't get the support you need,
> internally or externally. If IBM doesn't even talk about Informix,
> what does that tell you about how they support it and think about it?

You are probably right as such - i can't comment having used neither so far,
but if you need to re-market yourself as a techo, it's a learning curve to
any other product, so why not go to the one that seems to generate the most
job demand? If that high job demands is because it's so bloody difficult to
manage, then all the better if you can put yourself towards the top of the
heap which would make you more valuable as a specialist in a large job
market.

Of course, that depends on the problems of the product being surmountable
with knowledge, unlike any Microsoft product which is defective and
unfixable by design ;-)


Andrew Hamm

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 6:15:19 PM11/26/02
to

THAT I won't be looking at, unless someone can convince me it's a leading
edge solution instead of a bad smell hanging around from the '70s.


Tim Schaefer

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 9:03:54 PM11/26/02
to
Good points Andrew.

However, can you imagine the biggest on the block being
knocked down? Something tells me that Oracle may be in
a state of decline, even though they are riding high today.
Gartner recently demoted them in the data warehousing space.

I see Oracle 10i on the horizon, and is it any better than
8i or 9i? Doubtful. Thank god I didn't waste my money on the
certification. But the same can be said for Microsoft. In
terms of what these "leader" products can deliver, I'm willing
to bet people are taking closer looks at what these products
actually possess as opposed to what the marketing message is.
In that regard IBM may actually be strategically correct in
the long run.

Thanks,

Tim


"Andrew Hamm" <ah...@mail.com> wrote in message news:as0uep$mqk6b$1...@ID-79573.news.dfncis.de...

Andrew Hamm

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 10:42:31 PM11/26/02
to
Tim Schaefer wrote:
> Good points Andrew.
>
> However, can you imagine the biggest on the block being
> knocked down? Something tells me that Oracle may be in
> a state of decline, even though they are riding high today.
> Gartner recently demoted them in the data warehousing space.
>
> I see Oracle 10i on the horizon, and is it any better than
> 8i or 9i? Doubtful. Thank god I didn't waste my money on the
> certification. But the same can be said for Microsoft. In
> terms of what these "leader" products can deliver, I'm willing
> to bet people are taking closer looks at what these products
> actually possess as opposed to what the marketing message is.
> In that regard IBM may actually be strategically correct in
> the long run.
>

Geez I hope so, but is this some 21st century phenomenon? CEO's who look at
products with a technical eye?


Nebojsa Sevo

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 2:11:53 AM11/27/02
to
>On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:45:05 -0000, "Malcolm Weallans" <MWEA...@lqgroup.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>From the small number of contributors on this list compared to the
>>numbers of users out there I suspect that the attitude of the "silent
>>majority" is "I don't give a damn". Many of them will make the decision
>>as to what product to use next in the same way they always have. It
>>will be price/performance/availability issues as ever. And I don't see
>>any way that Informix will win in that decision anymore. IBM price it
>>higher than DB2. Although the performance is better the performance of
>>the company behind it leaves a lot to be desired. And availability?
>>Have any of you tried to get a new release out of Informix recently.
>>Pulling teeth is easier!
>>
I ordered new IDS WE for AIX and in 10 days CDs are here:
server 9.30.UC3
4GL RDS RT 7.30.UC7

Where is the problem?

Nebojsa

------------------------------------
Remove spam block (DELETE) to reply

Colin Bull

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 3:20:18 AM11/27/02
to


Andrew Hamm wrote


> You are probably right as such - i can't comment having used neither so far,
> but if you need to re-market yourself as a techo, it's a learning curve to
> any other product, so why not go to the one that seems to generate the most
> job demand? If that high job demands is because it's so bloody difficult to
> manage, then all the better if you can put yourself towards the top of the
> heap which would make you more valuable as a specialist in a large job
> market.
>
> Of course, that depends on the problems of the product being surmountable
> with knowledge, unlike any Microsoft product which is defective and
> unfixable by design ;-)
>
>

At the end of the day, the most important thing is to know there will be a slice of bread on the plate, but if you
can achieve this, and work on a product you are happy with, life will be a whole lot better. Job satisfaction means a
lot more to your life.

I would hate to be just shovelling shit and going home at 5.30.
I do not dread going to work every day, I look forward to the obstacles I can overcome to achieve a better system.

Here endeth the first lesson.


Colin Bull
c.b...@VideoNetworks.com


Obnoxio The Clown

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 5:50:49 AM11/27/02
to
Andrew Hamm came forth and spake, saying:

I hope Scott Adams doesn't impale me, but this just seemed so relevant, I
couldn't help but post it:

>From: "Scott Adams <dilbertn...@unitedmedia.com>"
>
> Dilbert Newsletter 44.0
>
> "A Little Ray of Bitter Sunshine"
>
>
>
>To: Dogbert's New Ruling Class (DNRC)
>From: Scott Adams (scott...@aol.com)
>Date: November 2002
>
>
>
>DNRC Progress Toward Total World Domination
>-------------------------------------------
>
>There are 632,000 DNRC members. Each of you is so brilliant you
>could attach electric cables to your skull and power a small city.
>But I don't recommend it.
>
>
>Leadership
>----------
>
>Lately, reporters keep asking for my views on leadership. I tell
>them that there are two credible theories of leadership. I will
>summarize them here:
>
>
> (1) The Popular Theory of Leadership
> ------------------------------------
> Blah, blah, blah, who cares, etc.
>
>
> (2) My Theory of Leadership
> ------------------------------
> Leadership is a huge weasel scam.
>
>
>You might have noticed that most CEOs are not eager to work for
>companies that are already in the crapper and rotating clockwise.
>That's puzzling, because you would think that a confident CEO who
>believed in the power of his own leadership skills would prefer a
>challenge -- something with more of an upside potential. But it
>seems that given the choice between a hard job, like CEO of Bob's
>Pastry and Muffler Shop, or something easy, like CEO of General
>Electric, most leaders will opt for the position that could be
>handled equally well by a sock monkey.
>
>If you replaced all of the CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies with
>Magic 8 Balls (tm), and came back in five years, you would discover
>that some of those companies had compiled excellent track records
>by pure chance. The CEO's job in a huge company is essentially the
>same as the Magic 8 Ball: saying yes, no, or maybe, without the
>benefit of understanding the questions. A Magic 8 Ball is highly
>qualified for that sort of work.
>
>Recently I heard an interview that CNBC did with Lou Gerstner. He
>said his biggest contribution as CEO at IBM was changing its
>culture. His example of how he changed the culture is that when he
>came into the job there was a lot of talk about breaking up the
>company into smaller companies; he decided not to do that. In other
>words, his biggest contribution to IBM was NOT DOING SOMETHING.
>Then he wrote a best-selling book about his leadership. The Magic 8
>Ball would have had a 50% chance making the same decision; a sock
>monkey would have nailed it on the first try.
>
>One more thing: If leadership involved skill, wouldn't we only need
>one book to describe it?

[SNIP]

Rudy

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 6:33:55 AM11/27/02
to
Manel Falcó <ma...@semic.es> wrote in message news:<as06ig$nqn$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com>...

> I agree. We've been waiting more than a month for the 9.3.UC3
>
> Regards,
> Manel
>

This may be a Account Rep. thing. We routinely get software upgrades
within a couple of days. The last time I asked for software (IDS 9.3
on Linux), I got the e-link and completed the download on the SAME
DAY... and this was a request from me using e-mail!!

Rudy

Tim Schaefer

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 6:57:03 AM11/27/02
to
I would question that too, but OTC makes a good
point as well. It is exactly the kind of thinking
that IBM and others are depending on, the non-technical
CEO, and an array of technicians who don't know any
better than the marketing, for them to make a sale of
their favorite database(s) and products. There are a
lot of dummies out there both CEO and technicians. Me,
I'm in favor of products that are not complicated. Which
gets back to picking Oracle or DB2 or _____. Informix
was easy to work with, probably the number one reason
I liked it. DB2 is easier tha Oracle so that's probably
my thinking down the line. Ya caught me! I'm lazy!

:-)

Tim
PS ( Isn't 4GL easier than C? )


"Andrew Hamm" <ah...@mail.com> wrote in message news:as1f12$n5kob$1...@ID-79573.news.dfncis.de...

Rob Vorbroker

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 9:49:11 AM11/27/02
to

CLIPPED....

On the other hand DB2 has been reported to be easy to learn, easy to
use. Personally I'm
lazy, so I go for the "easy" part. :-) Seriously DB2 enjoys a
shared-nothing clustering scheme
for data warehousing like Informix XPS so they have found favor with me
on that. Performance
is another question, and I just don't know how well DB2 is on the
performance side, perhaps
OTC has something to say about that. It does appear though that getting
"medicre" products
( IBM = I Build Mediocrity ) to perform better has been a function of
throwing better hardware
at the problem, so performance may be better than what I've heard in the
past.

Tim
****************************************************************************

Of course I've been involved in installations where the data & Appl from an
Informix
engine was ported to Oracle, on new larger servers, with more memory, and
worked
horribly. Took 2x as much CPUs to get near same speed - Oracle's own
consultants
were baffled. I just sat and smiled - as a consultant it's hard to bite
your tongue
sometimes - especially when you want to scream "I TOLD YOU SO". Anyone from
Honeywell
listening? :-P

There got that off my chest.

++++++++++++++++++++
Rob Vorbroker
Vorbroker Consulting
Email: ro...@vorbroker.com
**** NEW PHONE NUMBERS ****
Phone: 513-336-8695
Fax: 513-336-6812

rkusenet

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 11:11:02 AM11/27/02
to
"Rob Vorbroker" <ro...@dns1.vcicentral.com> wrote:-

> Of course I've been involved in installations where the data
> & Appl from an Informix engine was ported to Oracle, on new
> larger servers, with more memory, and worked horribly. Took
> 2x as much CPUs to get near same speed - Oracle's own consultants
> were baffled. I just sat and smiled - as a consultant it's hard
> to bite your tongue sometimes - especially when you want to scream
> "I TOLD YOU SO". Anyone from Honeywell listening?

Is this true??? Is Oracle that much behind Informix in performance.
Somehow I find this difficult to believe.

How many users out here believe that Informix is way ahead of
Oracle in performance.

Rob Vorbroker

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 1:55:46 PM11/27/02
to

Belief has nothing to do with it. I have seen it.
Belief is kept for things you believe to be true even
though you haven't experienced it. God, Female Logic,
Informix Marketing, etc. I my case I would
classify it as personal history or experience.

It all goes back to when the IDS engine was rebuilt from the
bottom up and Oracle kept adding plug-in modules for things.
At least that is this man's opinion.

For speed and scalability I still think the following rock
their particular market spaces (if I can use a word with marketing
undertones when referring to IBM Informix products).
XPS - Fastest I've seen for HUGE DW projects
IDS - Fastest OLTP and now scalable to 128 Petabytes (should you want to).
Red Brick - Fastest in Star Schema or Snowflake DW projects.

Once again - that's my opinion. But I'm STILL an Informix Bigot

++++++++++++++++++++
Rob Vorbroker
Vorbroker Consulting
Email: ro...@vorbroker.com
**** NEW PHONE NUMBERS ****
Phone: 513-336-8695
Fax: 513-336-6812

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-inf...@iiug.org
[mailto:owner-inf...@iiug.org]On Behalf Of rkusenet
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 11:11 AM
To: inform...@iiug.org
Subject: Re: Memories . . . .

Salsa Shark

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 2:15:04 PM11/27/02
to
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:11:02 -0500, "rkusenet" <rkus...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>How many users out here believe that Informix is way ahead of
>Oracle in performance.

Put XPS on an 8-node cluster with a couple terabytes of data.

Then try the same with Oracle 9i RAC.

You'll have your answer pretty quickly.

As far as IDS vs. 9i--"It depends". I'd say for standard
transactional data, there's probably not a huge gap between any of the
Big 5. But I can get spatial queries to run twenty times faster on
Informix than on Oracle...I'm not sure I can come up with a specific
type of transaction that Oracle would have an advantage with...

Mark Townsend

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 7:08:11 PM11/27/02
to
in article as2qt4$nbl74$1...@ID-75254.news.dfncis.de, rkusenet at
rkus...@sympatico.ca wrote on 11/27/02 8:11 AM:

> How many users out here believe that Informix is way ahead of
> Oracle in performance.

Obviously not enough :-)

Andrew Hamm

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 8:06:30 PM11/27/02
to

We've supplied one or two Orrible sites using the FourJ's ODI stuff.
Equivalent sites are noticably slower. The Oracle techies bought-in for
their knowledge and skills say "yes, it looks like the Informix engines are
faster on equivalent iron." and they say this with a barely forced,
please-don't-gloat, innocent, trying-to-look-accepting face.


Dusty Haas

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 2:13:08 PM11/26/02
to

Having worked with Oracle for a long time, and then suddenly having to go
to Informix I have to completely agree with you on this.

Oracle has bogged the whole system down with all the extra junk that now
comes in the database, and not to mention that every option that makes
Oracle worth while to some degree is - - you guessed it! A seperate
purchasable license!!!!

Everything I have seen on Informix from simple queries to complex queries,
to installation and configuration for networking, and even system resource
wise, Informix just plain kills Oracle.

An Inofrmix convert - though apparently too late to see the truth.

Tim Schaefer

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 9:46:21 PM11/27/02
to
Puleeeze!

If you can get a copy of "Parallel Systems In The Data Warehouse"
( ISBN number missing, my copy is at work ) Oracle and shared-disk
is firmly put to rest as an unviable alternative ( a joke ) in serious
data warehousing. Oracle's strength is in turnkey monolithic SMP OLTP
systems, and cannot, will not, EVER, compete in serious data warehousing,
end of story. Oracle will forever occupy many OLTP SMP spaces where their
performance meets acceptable levels from people who just don't know
any better. They have crude DW but even Gartner "delisted" them.

Plus it's not just about performance but a complete lack of new technology
in Oracle. They are using the same engine from 12 years ago. I have to
at least give some credit to IBM for advancing their engine, even though
I miss the Informix engines. XPS was a breeze to use, and I could bring
real newbie DBAs into the system and have them up and running in days, fully
capable of using and maintaining the system. Can't say that about Oracle.
Plus like I said before Oracle has too much to learn, it's too much for
people like me who want something easier and faster. :-) Who wants to
learn all that Oracle crap anyway...

Tim

"rkusenet" <rkus...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:as2qt4$nbl74$1...@ID-75254.news.dfncis.de...

Richard Kofler

unread,
Nov 28, 2002, 4:03:37 AM11/28/02
to

Let me humbly comment on hype, believing and facts

I make a living from IT-consulting in 3 fields
- industry (energy distribution & long distance land transports,
chemistry)
- industrial reseach
- television (sports & news)

All companies I work for have a certain need for speed and less
need for hype.

What always stunned me most is that I never ever met any 'O'
database system - although I always felt a need to know something
about 'O', because I kept seeing job adds everywhere offering
nice benefits alongside good hourly rates .....

My customers cannot - or do not want - to believe something,
instead they do a lot of testing to see & know.
This creates the common problem amonst them, that they first
have to find a suitable product as replacement, then they can
plan to go out of INFORMIX.

So far in testing done during the last 10 months, INFORMIX
never was less then 130% speedwise than the best competitor
with comparable TCO.

There is one exception to this 130%: That is teradata.
But teradata is much more expensive to run than INFORMIX
(google for my last posting mentioning teradata. It is all
explained there)

Dic_k
--
Richard Kofler
Consulting & Software Design
mail: richard...@chello.at
phone: +43 (0)699 11303027

Obnoxio The Clown

unread,
Nov 28, 2002, 12:53:15 PM11/28/02
to
Mark Townsend came forth and spake, saying:

Way-hey! Guess who's back? Back again? Stirrer's back, back again!

Malc P

unread,
Nov 29, 2002, 4:25:45 AM11/29/02
to
"Tim Schaefer" gives the game away

> XPS was a breeze to use, and I could bring
> real newbie DBAs into the system and have them up and running in days, fully
> capable of using and maintaining the system.

Careful, man, careful! Part of (some would say the major proportion
of) the DBA's job is to maintain the mystique and perpetuate the
impression that what we do is devilishly arcane, necessitating a
constant flow of virgins from the typing pool to keep the gods happy!
Once a PHB finds out it's that easy we'll all get busted back to 'tech
support' salaries.......

Malc

(off for a lie down)

Colin Bull

unread,
Nov 29, 2002, 5:21:46 AM11/29/02
to

Malc P wrote

Bloody hell, you are showing your age here. My dad told me what a typing pool was, and I remember
the Lone Ranger first time round !! :-)


Colin Bull
c.b...@VideoNetworks.com

Malcolm Weallans

unread,
Nov 29, 2002, 6:29:46 AM11/29/02
to

I remember typing pools, but what is a virgin? I thought that was an
airline.

Malcolm

-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Bull [mailto:c.b...@videonetworks.com]
Sent: 29 November 2002 10:22
To: inform...@iiug.org
Subject: RE: Memories . . . .


Colin Bull
c.b...@VideoNetworks.com

DISCLAIMER

Mark D. Stock

unread,
Nov 29, 2002, 6:33:57 AM11/29/02
to

Colin Bull wrote:
> Malc P wrote
>
>
>>"Tim Schaefer" gives the game away
>>
>>
>>> XPS was a breeze to use, and I could bring
>>>real newbie DBAs into the system and have them up and running in days, fully
>>>capable of using and maintaining the system.
>>
>>Careful, man, careful! Part of (some would say the major proportion
>>of) the DBA's job is to maintain the mystique and perpetuate the
>>impression that what we do is devilishly arcane, necessitating a
>>constant flow of virgins from the typing pool to keep the gods happy!
>>Once a PHB finds out it's that easy we'll all get busted back to 'tech
>>support' salaries.......
>
> Bloody hell, you are showing your age here....

Yes..., he still thinks Informix DBAs have JOBS!

Cheers,
--
Mark.

+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Mark D. Stock mailto:mds...@MydasSolutions.com |//////// /|
| Mydas Solutions Ltd http://MydasSolutions.com |///// / //|
| +-----------------------------------+//// / ///|
| |We value your comments, which have |/// / ////|
| |been recorded and automatically |// / /////|
| |emailed back to us for our records.|/ ////////|
+----------------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+

Obnoxio The Clown

unread,
Nov 29, 2002, 9:05:00 AM11/29/02
to
Malcolm Weallans came forth and spake, saying:

>
> I remember typing pools, but what is a virgin?

I don't know, I've never met one.

John Carlson

unread,
Dec 2, 2002, 10:10:38 AM12/2/02
to
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 11:33:57 +0000, "Mark D. Stock" <mds...@mydassolutions.com> wrote:

>
>Colin Bull wrote:
>> Malc P wrote
>>
>>
>>>"Tim Schaefer" gives the game away
>>>
>>>
>>>> XPS was a breeze to use, and I could bring
>>>>real newbie DBAs into the system and have them up and running in days, fully
>>>>capable of using and maintaining the system.
>>>
>>>Careful, man, careful! Part of (some would say the major proportion
>>>of) the DBA's job is to maintain the mystique and perpetuate the
>>>impression that what we do is devilishly arcane, necessitating a
>>>constant flow of virgins from the typing pool to keep the gods happy!
>>>Once a PHB finds out it's that easy we'll all get busted back to 'tech
>>>support' salaries.......
>>
>> Bloody hell, you are showing your age here....
>
>Yes..., he still thinks Informix DBAs have JOBS!
>

For now, at least . . . . . 8-)

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages