SQL Server 2000 vs. DB2 databases.

[Lam Nguyen]

Hi folks,


I need your help on find articles or magazines that proven
using SQL Server2000 is more cost effecitve and easier to
maintenance than DB2 databases. My company thinking to
convert all SQL Server to DB2 databases and we all oppose
that decision. We are using VB.Net and ASP.net as front
end. Our CIO and managements teams claim that it's cost
too much to use SQL Server vs. DB2. I am try to collect
information to show them that if we using SQL Server in a
long run will paid off in terms of costs, maintenances,
and easier to do trouble shoot because we still using
VB.Net and ASP.net as our front end. If you known where I
can find the information that using SQL Server more cost
effective and productive over DB2 please share that
information with me or point me to web site that has such
info. Thanks in advance.

Have a good Holidays.

if you take a look at TPC.ORG, SQL Server is an obvious leader in
price/performance.

(The new DB2 TPC_C benchmark not withstanding, that one looks fishy to me
same machine as may but much faster, what's up with that?)

"Lam Nguyen" <Nguyen.Lam@aaa-calif.com> wrote in message
news:09df01c3419d$47a34860$a001280a@phx.gbl...

> Hi folks,
>
>
> I need your help on find articles or magazines that proven
> using SQL Server2000 is more cost effecitve and easier to
> maintenance than DB2 databases. My company thinking to
> convert all SQL Server to DB2 databases and we all oppose
> that decision. We are using VB.Net and ASP.net as front
> end. Our CIO and managements teams claim that it's cost
> too much to use SQL Server vs. DB2. I am try to collect
> information to show them that if we using SQL Server in a
> long run will paid off in terms of costs, maintenances,
> and easier to do trouble shoot because we still using
> VB.Net and ASP.net as our front end. If you known where I
> can find the information that using SQL Server more cost
> effective and productive over DB2 please share that
> information with me or point me to web site that has such
> info. Thanks in advance.
>
> Have a good Holidays.
>

[Jacco Schalkwijk]

The Microsoft point of view:

[url]http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/default.asp[/url]

In my opinion the main reason to stay with SQL Server is that it is cheaper
to stick with whatever product you are using. The hidden costs in lower
developer and administrator productivity (because they have to learn all
those nasty little details of the new product) can be horrendous. This is in
no way biased to SQL Server, if the situation was the other way around I
would have advised you to stick with DB2.

But then, those are hidden costs, license costs are highly visible and your
CIO probably got a couple of nice pens from IBM ;-)

oh, and make sure that there is a nice fat training budget to train the team
in DB2. Probably hasn't been included in the calculations that have been
made so far.


"Lam Nguyen" <Nguyen.Lam@aaa-calif.com> wrote in message
news:09df01c3419d$47a34860$a001280a@phx.gbl...

> Hi folks,
>
>
> I need your help on find articles or magazines that proven
> using SQL Server2000 is more cost effecitve and easier to
> maintenance than DB2 databases. My company thinking to
> convert all SQL Server to DB2 databases and we all oppose
> that decision. We are using VB.Net and ASP.net as front
> end. Our CIO and managements teams claim that it's cost
> too much to use SQL Server vs. DB2. I am try to collect
> information to show them that if we using SQL Server in a
> long run will paid off in terms of costs, maintenances,
> and easier to do trouble shoot because we still using
> VB.Net and ASP.net as our front end. If you known where I
> can find the information that using SQL Server more cost
> effective and productive over DB2 please share that
> information with me or point me to web site that has such
> info. Thanks in advance.
>
> Have a good Holidays.
>

[Delbert Glass]

>Our CIO and managements teams claim that it's cost

>too much to use SQL Server vs. DB2.

If they really knew that,
and it really "cost too much"
wouldn't they make the decission to switch
without "we" ever getting to say anything?
But hey, for all I know, they have money to burn
and don't mind spending it to get
whatever tools "we" would prefer to work with.
But how could that be the case given
they are the ones who said, "cost too much"?

How about starting by asking them for
a copies/references to the information
upon which their claim is made?
(Along with explains of how they interpreted the information.)

Don't be surprise if a review leads you to the determination
that their "claim" is not a real claim;
but rather, a reaction to licensesing policies.
So perhaps it would serve your purpose to
point out that licensesing fees are only part
of the total cost. And help them understanding
the magnitude of the cost to retool, retrain, rtc.
(Of course you are already here.)

Be alert,
because both options might cost too much for them.

Bye,
Delbert Glass

"Lam Nguyen" <Nguyen.Lam@aaa-calif.com> wrote in message
news:09df01c3419d$47a34860$a001280a@phx.gbl...

> Hi folks,
>
>
> I need your help on find articles or magazines that proven
> using SQL Server2000 is more cost effecitve and easier to
> maintenance than DB2 databases. My company thinking to
> convert all SQL Server to DB2 databases and we all oppose
> that decision. We are using VB.Net and ASP.net as front
> end. Our CIO and managements teams claim that it's cost
> too much to use SQL Server vs. DB2. I am try to collect
> information to show them that if we using SQL Server in a
> long run will paid off in terms of costs, maintenances,
> and easier to do trouble shoot because we still using
> VB.Net and ASP.net as our front end. If you known where I
> can find the information that using SQL Server more cost
> effective and productive over DB2 please share that
> information with me or point me to web site that has such
> info. Thanks in advance.
>
> Have a good Holidays.
>

[Bob Castleman]

>

> Be alert,
> because both options might cost too much for them.
>
> Bye,
> Delbert Glass

Be alert. We need more lerts.

Seriously, management doesn't always like their assumptions contradicted.
This is an excellent opportunity to practice communication (and survival)
skills.

[Delbert Glass]

"Bob Castleman" <nomail@here> wrote in message
news:ecbw7laQDHA.2480@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

>Seriously, management doesn't always like their assumptions contradicted.

That's mostly because the manager is aware
he should be fired for making assumptions
whenever he is being paid
to make informed business decisions.

The situation gets to be rather ackward.

If you say something you get fired.

If you don't say something you are likely to get fired,
so he can hire someone else who is "familar" with the new tool
under the assumptions/brags he is avoiding training cost
and is doing such a good of job doing his job
since he is doing a lot of "matching" the personal to the "job".
Even braging he has reduced the payroll.
Appearately, under the assumptions that tool=job
and payroll=total_cost_of_personel.
(As you mentioned management is not going to like
anyone contradicting the assumptions. For example
by mentioning other cost of personel such as training.)
Yet, an informed decision would have acknowledged
there is training cost whether they kept you or replaced you.
Furthermore often the person hired,
based almostly solely on the fact that
they have previously (elsewhere) touch the new tool,
is a person that needs a lot of training.
Thereafter, any of the guys who didn't get replaced start wondering
if the guys who did get replaced were the lucky ones.
Even more so as they see guy after guy
excercise the survival skill: exit the area.

Even if you get to continue to not say something
for the maximium amount of time,
good money gets spent after bad money
until the company goes out of business;
rather than, corrective action taken
since that is dangeriously close to
admitting a bad decision was made.
Ponder, ultimately which decision was the first bad decision.

>This is an excellent opportunity to practice
>communication (and survival) skills.

Oops, you forget something:
Management doesn't always like that.

In which case, it's all the more important
to be practicing those skills in the bigger picture too
not just in the small picture alone.

Bye,
Delbert Glass

[Delbert Glass]

"Bob Castleman" <nomail@here> wrote in message
news:ecbw7laQDHA.2480@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

>Seriously, management doesn't always like their assumptions contradicted.

That's mostly because the manager is aware
he should be fired for making assumptions
whenever he is being paid
to make informed business decisions.

The situation gets to be rather ackward.

If you say something you get fired.

If you don't say something you are likely to get fired,
so he can hire someone else who is "familar" with the new tool
under the assumptions/brags he is avoiding training cost
and is doing such a good of job doing his job
since he is doing a lot of "matching" the personal to the "job".
Even braging he has reduced the payroll.
Appearately, under the assumptions that tool=job
and payroll=total_cost_of_personel.
(As you mentioned management is not going to like
anyone contradicting the assumptions. For example
by mentioning other cost of personel such as training.)
Yet, an informed decision would have acknowledged
there is training cost whether they kept you or replaced you.
Furthermore often the person hired,
based almostly solely on the fact that
they have previously (elsewhere) touch the new tool,
is a person that needs a lot of training.
Thereafter, any of the guys who didn't get replaced start wondering
if the guys who did get replaced were the lucky ones.
Even more so as they see guy after guy
excercise the survival skill: exit the area.

Even if you get to continue to not say something
for the maximium amount of time,
good money gets spent after bad money
until the company goes out of business;
rather than, corrective action taken
since that is dangeriously close to
admitting a bad decision was made.
Ponder, ultimately which decision was the first bad decision.

>This is an excellent opportunity to practice
>communication (and survival) skills.

Oops, you forget something:
Management doesn't always like that.

In which case, it's all the more important
to be practicing those skills in the bigger picture too
not just in the small picture alone.

Bye,
Delbert Glass

[param T]

Nguyen,
COnsdiering your situation, I have a good recommendation for you. Sicne
you do not know DB2, this is a opportunity for you learn DB2. Does you
company pay overtime?
Once you get DB2, you have to reorg DB often which takes time for the
DBA . Once the company pay opvertime for the reorg work, CFO will feel
the pinch.
in any case it is good for you . Hence go for it rather than object.




*** Sent via Developersdex [url]http://www.developersdex.com[/url] ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

[Delbert Glass]

"Bob Castleman" <nomail@here> wrote in message
news:ecbw7laQDHA.2480@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

> Be alert. We need more lerts.

Who are alert that lerts can alert!

Bye,
Delbert Glass

[Delbert Glass]

Luckily the description is not of my current situation.

It sounds like you've never heard of the "importance"
of touching the new tool elsewhere.

It happens even when the existing guy has some familiarity with the new
tool.
Even happens when the existing guy has touch the new tool at the company.
It even happens when the existing guy has much experience and ability
in the domain of the new tool, say database-ing and programming.
Not to mention his familarity with company specify information, practices,
etc.

Yet he gets replaced by a new guy whose basic sole contribution
(You should ask,"Contribution to who's objective?")
is that his resume says he touch the new tool
at someother company (ie elsewhere). This includes when the new
guy not only has very little knowledge of how to use the new tool at all
(including even when it's far less knowledge then the existing guy has)
but also has little grasp for what the tools is even for
nor any grasp for the domain at all.
It shouldn't take much wondering to figure out a likely reason
why that new guy was available for hire even if he was still
employeed elsewhere.

Jeepers, somethimes the existing guy ends up setting
everything up in the new tool and teaching the new guy
how to do at least a few things before he has to depart.

Bye,
Delbert Glass

[Unregistered]

I would think you CIO knows a thing about IBM Syetem i / iSeries/as-400/, or whatever interation that DB2 resides on. Unlike Microsoft, I have never heard of an IBM midrange system getting HACKED, or getting a VIRUS. DB2 is rock solid, and is based on standard SQL. I can't knock SQL Server or Oracle, in and of themselves, but with DB2 you get away from one of the most Mickey Mouse operating systems ever created - Microsoft.