|  |     
    Phil, 
    
    I would support it wholeheartedly!  And, if such a tool were available,
    I would make it a point to go out, armed with this capability, and 
    start knocking Oracle-heads about.  You are soooo correct... it is 
    a chicken/egg problem.  If Sales feels that we don't have a solution
    to a given migration/conversion situation, then they will tend to 
    avoid that situation, taking the path of least resistance towards
    making their budgets (possible large generalization, here,) by 
    selling only those conversion solutions that are readily available.
    Read on:
    
    o I met you in Providence recently.  I'm Sales Support for the NY/NJ
      Volume Recruiting Unit.  It is, of course, our charter to recruit
      new OEMs (VARs, CMPs, whatever.)  I've heard about your group and
      have accounts that are currently using ACES/PS under RIB funding.
    
    o I'm looking forward to the solutions that your group can provide.
      It seems inane, sometimes, that a company with the size and stature
      of Digital, realizing that just about *everyone* in the world now
      has some sort of computer, cannot find it reasonable to provide
      clear and concise migration pathways from Product X to VAX/RISC,
      especially considering that we really want people to run on our
      platforms.  The issue, for any conversion group, usually comes 
      down to a matter of Funding.  To that end, I think that the solutions
      that your group currently can provide are a Godsend.
    
    o Customers, knowing that a potential migration will most likely be
      long, expensive, and painful, DO NOT wish to fund such a project.
      Indeed many almost seem to expect the vendor to convert them quickly,
      easily, and with a minimum of expense.  'Ay, that's the world today.
    
    o So, which is an easier sell?  Telling a customer that we have a
      toolset available and ready to roll, or telling him/her that if they
      put forth a certain (large) amount of cash, we'll develop a tool or
      turn it into a custom project?  (It's a rhetorical question.)
      We'll make better margins, and attract more customers when we're
      able to tell them that we have a pre-established migration pathway
      managed by a group that demonstrably has their collective guano
      together.
    
    o I, and one of my peers, have been 'round & 'round in the
    conversion space for many years now, and it seems that each time we
    investigate a migration pathway it's a new story.  Funded groups that
    have provided us with top notch solutions get nuked.  Non-funded groups
    are difficult to deal with due to a lack of funding.  (This often winds
    up to be a case where the customer is willing to convert and will pay
    a certain number of dollars, but cannot extend themselves to the total
    cost of developing a "custom" migration solution.  The opportunity
    winds up to be a bust because no one can find it within themselves to
    commit dollars.  What a pity!)  Third party solutions often wind up
    washing out because they can't stay current (tools break over time)
    or the solution becomes atrophied due to a lack of DEC committment
    in selling the conversion.
    
    o Bottom line:  ACES/PS WILL be useful.  I would actually call it a
    Blessing, for it serves as an insulating layer, oftimes, between DEC,
    the customer, and the technology of the solution.  But, VAR recruiting
    and software ports will only be largely successful if and when we can
    go into the account, demonstrate that we have a porting solution in
    place, manage and deliver the solution without gyrating amongst various
    groups, all with a minimum of pain & bucks.  I guess the message here
    is that we have to have these solutions in place BEFORE the sale, not
    after.  And, if you provide any given solution, such as ORACLE to Rdb,
    I would support, recommend, and participate in a concerted effort to
    sell that solution.
    
    I'm afraid that I've run on a bit here (apologies....) but it's clearly
    an issue with my group.  Phil, call if you'd like to discuss this
    further.  In the meantime, I have a couple of opportunities for you!
    
    Best regards,
    Bob
    
 | 
|  |     I've used Oracle since 1981 v2.* days.  My last residence was at a site
    beta testing v6.0.26 .  If this is an example of their new database
    technology, I think a conversion package would be very timely.  I had
    been somewhat of a fan of Oracle's product until 6.*.  I know the older
    stuff was slow, and had performance problems, but it worked and was
    dependable.
    
    I question if V6 will ever work right and have the stability of the
    older products.  I tried and could not find the performance increases,
    especially on queries.  Unless I miss my guess query is slower on V6.
    
    Database corruption is another story, every time I tried to do
    something on the V6 database it was corrupted or not available. 
    
    I may be wrong, but I think we will see more and more users with Oracle
    begin to show interest in RDB, a conversion process would help.
    Yoy can overlook a lot problems when you are convinced you have the
    best, but a corrupted database gets everyones attention.
    
    The problem is everyone hates to admit that they made a mistake, and
    with the Oracle bandwagon going full steam, they don't see how they
    could have made an error.  After all 20% (Oracles estimation) of the 
    VAX DBMS users can't all be wrong, can they?   You bet they can and are!
    
    
    Sparky Who_is_real_glad_I'm_not_responsible_for_an_Oracle_system_now
 |