Re: Cheaper Servers? - Been there - done that

I got one of these. Great wee box.

Biggest drawbacks.

  - Too much heavy cabling to attache console, tape drive, etc.  Almost
makes it non-portable. If the console is not there it still works but
the yellow light is on and it displays an SRC code. If I go anywhere
with it I take a MAU, token ring cable, and a lap top as well. A lot of
stuff to lug about. Not taking the tape drive (which is a another
significabtly sized box) means I cannot do any back up, saves or
restores whilst away. The absence of the console cable when away from
office limits functions that may be required if something goes wrong. If
I don't leave all these things behind the machine is certainly not
portable.

 - Insufficient disk capacity - only 2 GB. Can't load this with much in
the way of applications/data. IBM always under sizes disks and charges a
small fortune for them.

 - Insufficent memory - its very slow - 24MB

It is still a useful machine still, even thought it is stuck on V3R2.
IBM only went part way with this one. I think it must have been an
experiment to see what kind of response they would get. Unfortnately,
they didn't make it portable enough, or give it sufficient capacity to
be realistic and this restricted sales. Perhaps another example of IBM
not quite understanding their customer requirements.

Syd Nicholson



Vernon Hamberg wrote:

> FYI - From v3r2 Handbook
>
>> AS/400 Advanced Portable is a full-function, multi-user AS/400 that is
>> easily transportable and capable of running all AS/400 applications. It
>> can be used for development and testing of new applications, as well as
>> training and customer support activities consistent with supporting
>> multiple, remote, or distributed systems.
>>
>> AS/400 Advanced Portable is offered in predefined packages, five
>> twinaxial-based systems (9401-P03, T01, T02, T03, T11, and T12),
>> three LAN
>> based systems (9401-P03, L01, L02, and L03), and a server (9401-10S,
>> S01).
>
>
> Now, y'all can tell me why this did not fly the last time IBM tried
> this. I
> don't know, personally.
>