Re: "Cult of the Wintel PC" raises head at AWC's switch to Macs

On Mar 7, 5:51 pm, Jim <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<1c4338c5-6f6e-4623-bca0-3b554d544...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<snip>
Not accordint to M$ as I read it.

"A SQL Server CAL is required for a device (for example, a personal
computer, workstation, terminal, personal digital assistant, or mobile
phone) to access or use the services or functionality of either edition
of SQL Server."

Which is what AWC appears to be claiming as well.

jim, are you f'in' kidding me- how do you think that contradicts what
i've been saying the whole time?- if you keep the server ms, it
doesn't matter what the client is- you've still got to pay for a
client license. from my very first post, i said "you can switch the
backend stuff, and rewrite your client software in java, and not have
to switch to costlier hardware."

and second
moving to xServes when the current hardware the SQL is running on is
changed out. Then they have no licensing fees to pay over what ever life
cycle (read years here) is for them.

THIS part is correct, and is consistent with what i've been saying all
along- changing the server software removes the need for the
licenses.  but ms sql is the ONE piece that they say they are
KEEPING.  you REALLY didn't read the article very well, did you?

I went to M$ page on SQL server along with reading the article. M$ does
like money, a lot of it.

There are other M$ server costs as well,

" AWC has also finished migrating from Microsoft's Active Directory to
Apple's Open Directory for controlling the network. This is especially
significant, Frantz says, because the controlling operating system
architecture determines licensing costs.

yes jim, that's what i've said the whole time. what the server is
running- that's the "controlling operating system architecture" in
that quote- determines what your client connecting licensing costs are
going to be, not the client itself.

"By getting off of Microsoft Active Directory and onto Open Directory,
each individual server becomes separate and Microsoft can no longer view
[and charge for] a broad enterprise network. This was a very significant
change," Frantz says. "

Did you read the article?

yes i did, and all your quotes SUPPORT what i've been saying, and what
you've been arguing against! it's become very clear you have no idea
what the article actually means!

holy crap jim, you are seriously dumb.  i didn't claim to be any kind
of expert, i didn't insinuate it, and i didn't imply it.  it was
brought up, in context, to show that i obviously don't have a hate of
apple/macs as you imagine i do.

I didn't say you hate of Apple/Macs at all.

no, that was a bit of hyperbole (but not much)- you did say i DISLIKE
apple/macs, which is also very much not true.

You just love M$ more,
that's all and are one of their cultists.

no jim, you only think that because YOU are an apple cultist, and a ms
hater, as evidenced by you using 'm$' :P  .  i simply think they're
both companies out to make a buck, neither one is any better than the
other, and their products both have their pluses and minuses.

I'm a Mac "cultist" though I have Macs, Windows and a Solaris box and
recommend the task-driven solution for my clients not a Mac Centeric one
which only goes to show that you don't know squat about what I recommend
for what situation.

The task defines the software and together they define the hardware. If
it runs on all hardware, then you have other factors to look at.

All in all, at least in this case, I'm sure the article didn't enumerate
all the costs so we don't quite know what's going into that $1.82M
savings. For one, they spoke of a 3 year hardware cycle. Macs in
schools, where they typically get beat on worse than in a corporation,
have a mostly 5 year life cycle with KB,M or HD repairs so they may save
money there with a lengthened hardware cycle for one.

dude, companies don't typically run 3 year cycles because the things
wear out and need to be replaced.

<snip>
.

Relevant Pages

  • suspect bug in vge(4)
    ... The high-level view of the problem is that the client seems to stall ... HTTPS server. ... not only printed for TLS/SSL issues but simply also for broken TCP ... To me it sounds like a broken implementation of hardware generated ...
    (freebsd-current)
  • Re: DataSet.GetChanges() in RowChanged(DataRowAction.Add)
    ... have you considered SQL Express and use ... > I realize now that I didn't describe well how the client application is ... > Framework installed on the client machine, but not any SQL Server). ... > 20 tables in different relations with eachother in the database, ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.adonet)
  • Re: SBS 2003 and Sql Server ~ Client Install
    ... I've found the client tools and have now successfully installed them. ... Access front end to a SQL database, Excel can be a front end, A word mail merge document could access a SQL database via ODBC. ... We are trying to install the client software. ... We understand that a Northwind training database is available for SQL Server. ...
    (microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz2000)
  • Re: SBS 2003 and Sql Server ~ Client Install
    ... I've found the client tools and have now ... A word mail merge document could access a SQL database via ... We want to install to gain an understanding. ... Once we've managed to install the SQL Server Client we can start to ...
    (microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz2000)
  • Re: TDS vs. TCP
    ... I start capturing the network traffic between SQL ... Server and the client. ... I don't see any TDS packets but the communication between SQL ... stand-a-lone server and the client, ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)