<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: So what is Enterprise anyway?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://neilmiddleton.com/2007/08/02/so-what-is-enterprise-anyway/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://neilmiddleton.com/2007/08/02/so-what-is-enterprise-anyway/</link>
	<description>in more than 140 characters</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun,  7 Feb 2010 02:41:38 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris Dawes</title>
		<link>http://neilmiddleton.com/2007/08/02/so-what-is-enterprise-anyway/comment-page-1/#comment-28978</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Dawes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2007 01:54:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.feed-squirrel.com/2007/08/02/so-what-is-enterprise-anyway/#comment-28978</guid>
		<description>How about moving to a workgroup version, with an intranet featureset, without clustering...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How about moving to a workgroup version, with an intranet featureset, without clustering&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Todd Rafferty</title>
		<link>http://neilmiddleton.com/2007/08/02/so-what-is-enterprise-anyway/comment-page-1/#comment-28779</link>
		<dc:creator>Todd Rafferty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:49:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.feed-squirrel.com/2007/08/02/so-what-is-enterprise-anyway/#comment-28779</guid>
		<description>Maybe &quot;Enterprise&quot; should be defined by the number of visitors your site has.  Google/Yahoo/Microsoft website traffic are definitely the market for &quot;Enterprise&quot; scaling.  Myspace.com would require enterprise.  Banks require enterprise.  Logitech.com requires enterprise.  MyCustomBlogShack.com, not so much.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe &#8220;Enterprise&#8221; should be defined by the number of visitors your site has.  Google/Yahoo/Microsoft website traffic are definitely the market for &#8220;Enterprise&#8221; scaling.  Myspace.com would require enterprise.  Banks require enterprise.  Logitech.com requires enterprise.  MyCustomBlogShack.com, not so much.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Todd Rafferty</title>
		<link>http://neilmiddleton.com/2007/08/02/so-what-is-enterprise-anyway/comment-page-1/#comment-28778</link>
		<dc:creator>Todd Rafferty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:45:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.feed-squirrel.com/2007/08/02/so-what-is-enterprise-anyway/#comment-28778</guid>
		<description>Standard/Professional which was renamed to Standard/Enterprise is nothing more than a marketing effort to keep up with the industry buzzwords.  

I do agree with you on this topic.  At work, we have several &quot;standard&quot; boxes that host multiple sites because the owner doesn&#039;t want to shell out any more money for the enterprise boxes.  I could certainly see us utilizing the enterprise features, especially everything that is restricted by the Standard EFR.  I can&#039;t see us using J2EE deployment and we don&#039;t use oracle.

I guess I kind of wish that I could upgrade certain parts of a standard license.  We utilize cfdocument a lot here, so... let me upgrade that part, etc.  I know why Adobe doesn&#039;t let us do that, but at the same time, I&#039;m not going to go through the hassle of explaining to the owner of the company why enterprise would be better for us if he&#039;s already happy with the performance we have and the speed of our development.  It&#039;s not like I can say, &quot;Oh, well, you&#039;ll be... happier?&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Standard/Professional which was renamed to Standard/Enterprise is nothing more than a marketing effort to keep up with the industry buzzwords.  </p>
<p>I do agree with you on this topic.  At work, we have several &#8220;standard&#8221; boxes that host multiple sites because the owner doesn&#8217;t want to shell out any more money for the enterprise boxes.  I could certainly see us utilizing the enterprise features, especially everything that is restricted by the Standard EFR.  I can&#8217;t see us using J2EE deployment and we don&#8217;t use oracle.</p>
<p>I guess I kind of wish that I could upgrade certain parts of a standard license.  We utilize cfdocument a lot here, so&#8230; let me upgrade that part, etc.  I know why Adobe doesn&#8217;t let us do that, but at the same time, I&#8217;m not going to go through the hassle of explaining to the owner of the company why enterprise would be better for us if he&#8217;s already happy with the performance we have and the speed of our development.  It&#8217;s not like I can say, &#8220;Oh, well, you&#8217;ll be&#8230; happier?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
