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