From: Ellen K. 

Then you don't need SQL Server, you are correct.

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 09:18:13 -0400, "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message :

>Yes.
>
>- Bob Comer
>
>
>"Ellen K"  wrote in message
>news:e09bc1.d18613{at}harborwebs.com...
>> It comes with a version of DB2?
>>
>>> From: "Robert Comer" 
>>> I'm moving away from MS SQL Server, so it really doesn't matter.
>>> It's not because MS SQL Server is bad, it's just that the AS/400's DB is
>>> better and I already have that, so SQL Server is a redundant extra cost.
>>> - Bob Comer
>>> "Ellen K."  wrote in message
>>> news:b1n4b1d8q4hcpmtofa068eavu1l7gefqq0{at}4ax.com...
>>>> Well, Standard is very cost-effective.   :)
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:23:22 -0400, "Robert Comer"
>>>>  wrote in message
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>> The other thing to bear in mind is that you may
not need Enterprise.
>>>>>> Enterprise is currently needed if you want to use
the prebuilt log
>>>>>> shipping or clustering, or more than 2 CPUs or
more than 4 GB RAM. I
>>>>>> think you also need Enterprise for indexed views
(what Oracle calls
>>>>>> materialized views).  If you want log shipping on
Standard you can
>>>>>> RYO.
>>>>>> I'm using Standard on all my current databases,
and it's about 1/4 the
>>>>>> cost.
>>>>>
>>>>> We wouldn't need any of those, so no need for enterprise.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Bob Comer
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ellen K." 
wrote in message
>>>>> news:cm73b1loqb99g2ngkpn4bk8pdv0j6h9opl{at}4ax.com...
>>>>>> The other thing to bear in mind is that you may
not need Enterprise.
>>>>>> Enterprise is currently needed if you want to use
the prebuilt log
>>>>>> shipping or clustering, or more than 2 CPUs or
more than 4 GB RAM.  I
>>>>>> think you also need Enterprise for indexed views
(what Oracle calls
>>>>>> materialized views).  If you want log shipping on
Standard you can
>>>>>> RYO.
>>>>>> I'm using Standard on all my current databases,
and it's about 1/4 the
>>>>>> cost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For 2005 they are coming out with another level I
forget the name of
>>>>>> that's between Standard and Enterprise but is only
slightly more
>>>>>> expensive than the current Standard (I think list
is $6K vs $5K for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> current Standard), it has failover clustering, up
to I think 4 CPUs,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> as much RAM as your O/S allows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:36:42 -0400, "Robert Comer"
>>>>>>  wrote in message
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So it wouldn't make sense here...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Bob Comer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "John Cuccia"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:nr23b1l8rm1mrth1jm9tvj5mc6tvu34tpv{at}4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:22:38 -0400,
"Robert Comer"
>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As for per-user, I can't imagine
going per-user on a production
>>>>>>>>>> database, per-CPU gets cheaper at
a pretty low number of users.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just what is that pretty low number of users?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looks like just under 100, based on this:
>>>>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.asp
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Enterprise is $19128 per processor.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Per server + user CAL price is $6382 + $146/user, so
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (19128 - 6382)/146 = 87
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5