Re: Cheaper Servers?

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Rich" <james@eaerich.com>
To: <midrange-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: Cheaper Servers?


> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Dare @ Work wrote:
>
> > I think a portable OS400 can give Windoze a ride for its money.  Not to
> > mention the stability of OS400 amongst many of its superior features.
Don't
> > quote me but we could break the monopoly of Microsoft on OS.
>
> This is ridiculous.  The same issues that keep linux and apple from
> breaking MicroSoft's monopoly will keep OS/400 out of the portable market.
> If by portable you mean "not on a server" then those issues are even more
> potent against OS/400.  What are those issues?

I'm not sure what you are getting at.  What issues are you reffering to?
I don't understand what is ridiculous here but you could have an OS400
client and a server version.

>
> 1.  Microsoft marketing, monopoly power, and politics
> These three are where the real power of the microsoft corporation
> lies.  These three alone are very nearly enough to conquer any
> technical reason that might be used to not use a microsoft
> product.

Are you saying IBM can not or does not have the monopoly power with OS400?
If IBM changes its marketing approach, it can be more powerful than M'soft.

> 2.  People have needs on portables that OS/400 does not supply
> Portables (both intel and powerpc) include features such as
> plug and play, wireless networks, video (whether standard
> SVGA, 3D, or TV), etc.  OS/400 cannot work with any of these
> hardware issues.  People do need to listen to CDs, browse
> the web, peruse news groups, write letters, do calculations,
> etc. all of which cannot be done (currently) on OS/400.

You must have not followed this thread from begininng.
The achitecture doesn't have to be same as Intel and PowerPc and still
provide these functions.
Have you heard of LPAR? If yes what is your point about what people can not
do on the 400.
Is not the point we are making here that IBM will have to make these
features available?

>
> The only people who want OS/400 on a portable are people who already have
> OS/400 on a server.  People who need the abilities of OS/400 aren't going
> to need them on a portable.  Uptime?  Who cares?  A portable is shut off
> all the time anyway.  Stability?  Who cares?  Same reason.  No SVGA?  Are
> you kidding me?  You want that on a portable?

Which people are you talking about? Is this a scientific survey you did and
where is your data?
You will be surprise how much Uptime and stability will play in today's
computing if there is a choice out there.

>
> Even if issue #2 was not a problem, issue #1 still is.  As far as meeting
> the needs of portable users, linux kicks all over OS/400's butt yet you
> don't see linux breaking microsoft's monopoly (yet - despite my best
> efforts).

What's your point? Linux, Windoze and OS400 are not the same flavor.

>
> Beyond the small scope of this list, nobody wants OS/400 on their
> portables.  Use the right tool for the right job.  OS/400 on a portable is
> the wrong tool.  You don't run database servers on portables.

I think you're a bit narrow minded here buddy.

>
> Need to demo your 5250 application?  If you can't connect over the
> internet or dial-up then make a slide presentation.

Again, you're not following the thread and the suggestions.

>
> James Rich
> james@eaerich.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>