Please help at our site we have the crazy Business Objects salesman who
are trying to convince our Managers to convert from SQL Server DTS to
Business Objects Integrator ETL tool.

We have quite a many DTS packages used on a day to day basis and they
process quite a volume of data. The BO Salesman is arguing that DTS is
not scalable but we found the other way BO Integrator which is Acta
Works that BO acquired is substantially slower to DTS processing flat
file and uploads from even data sources like Oracle, DB2, it lacks many
of the transformations and tasks like Mail task and lacks in universal
OLE DB connectivity to many source and targets that is DTSs strengths.

Besides that unlike VB Script, JScript and PerlScript that can be used
in DTS for transformation language we need to learn a proprietary
language called ATL (Acta Tranformation Language) which is a Acta
proprietary language and is nowhere as flexible and universally spoken
and understood as VB Script.

Please advice if there is some place where can find some of these
comparisons between DTS to other ETL tools we do not want to take the
Business Objects nonsense.

Thanks
Karen

Cost? BO does not give stuff away from what I recall! Do they charge per
connector as well? Often overlooked by salesmen when trying to tell you make
their pitch, and becomes very expensive in heterogeneous environments.

You have DTS, and it essentially comes free with SQL Server. If perf is bad
as well, then I really cannot see why this needs more discussion. DTS is not
a great ETL though. It lacks a lot of features compared to other mature ETL
tools, but then I don't know how good BO is.

Feature and perf wise I think SSIS (DTS for SQL 2005) is a much better
story, and if you have MS skills and MS licences, and either have Software
Assurance or plan to U/G to SQL 2005, I'd save your money, and maybe spend
it on SQL 2005. It is a much better product, and really challenges the
high-end ETL vendors.

--
Darren Green
http://www.sqldts.com
http://www.sqlis.com

<karenmiddleol (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote