February 10, 2005 at 1:32 pm
Hello all,
We are avowed MS SS2K developers but have a new client who is looking at a couple of off-the-shelf packages. One is based on SS2K but is actually kinda flaky and lacking in some business functionality they require. The other does what they want to a "T" but uses this Borland/Delphi oriented thing called Advantage Database Server as the back end.
Here's a link to a comparison doc you can check out if you wish:
http://www.advantagedb.com/ESI/NR/rdonlyres/ADVvsSQLWhitePaper0103.pdf
Disregarding some flagrantly warped logic, liberal use of several statistical assumptions, and the obvious "SS2K sucks compared to us" slant of this document -- as far as I'm concerned, if it's stable and works for your situation, then do what makes sense -- has anyone ever heard of this product?
If so, do you have any concerns, caveats, gotchas, problems, any input whatsoever regarding this thing?
Thanks in advance for any help.
Vik
February 11, 2005 at 2:20 am
Hi Vik
Yes, I have used Advantage to turn a Clipper system into a real client/server system back when we were doing our Y2k modifications. It was a million times better than Clipper's dBase-based files, but I am not sure how it would compare to a modern day DBMS. Neither do I know whether they are maybe also a modern day DBMS themselves...
Regards
Schalk
February 11, 2005 at 9:00 am
Right off the things that stand out to me in their propaganda flyer are the prices at the bottom.
Apparently they used the old pricing models and they never state which version they are comparing with.
Also they state their is $0 training for theirs, well SQL can be $0 as well if you want to throw somebody at it.
How is someone going to be able to build a database in their system without some basic training.
What about trobleshooting? Is this product so smart it never fails and it designs itself.
If so I hope the app writes itself too so you will need some kind of training to work with it.
Maybe they just don't charge that still doesn't mean a user or developer will not need to purchase a book on SQL same as the MS product if you leanrn on your own.
Also they list administration as $0. I don't buy that. Sometime, somewhere, someone is going to have to backup the data, configure the service, install it.
That is adminsitration as much as anything else. No corporation is going to assume a user will not fail the process and allow al user to do the install themselves.
Also who sets up user accounts, if it runs on multiple platforms you cannot tell me it is not going to need user setup.
All and all they may have a good product, there are hundreds of DBMS systems out there (I got a list of 20 in my favorites).
I am leary of their TCO statement and if you weigh this against MSDE since they talk about local installs you can get the same TCO from MS.
As far as comparison I would truely ask for the benchmark data and that it comes from a solid source not them.
With everything in mind thou the users perception of things is only as good as the design of the database itself.
And lastly do you have to purchase multiple copies for multiple databases or can it handle more than one DB at a time.
Now with all that said I would still consider them as an option but make sure you get a test copy and see for yourself if it can live up to it's boast especially with large databases unless your customer only has a single small database.
February 11, 2005 at 9:15 am
Antares,
All good points. Yeah, this pdf is pure propaganda -- old pricing, all kinds of nonsense about zero administration, boasts about functionality that is basic to pretty much any DBMS worth it's salt. I especially like the whole "based on hiring & training a certified MS DBA, your SQL Server TCO becomes $$$" bullsh.
Our client is hip to this stuff. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my initial post, but the package is already built and happens to use this as the back end database, so we have no choice in that regard. And it's gonna be a pretty small database.
That being said, as long as it's stable and there are no outstanding bugs with the thing that are going to render the application unusable, then they can go with it. Our role is more to "unrecommend" the product based on this criteria.
Thanks for the input.
Vik
February 11, 2005 at 10:32 am
Understandable. However if it is already there, is small and the application is on par why waste time andmoney researching further? As said, if it isn't broker then don't fix it. But with the case of software you have to factor TCO, if there isn't really any then the research to replace may actually cost more than just leaving unless you guarantee the will recoope the cost long term in full and see a savings.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply