|
The preconfiguration depends on how the system was ordered - if you still need Twinax (you shouldn't), it's a lot cheaper to order the system with Twinax Console, and place a MES order fort he Thin Console (Twinax Console and Thin Console Initial System are the same price - but the Thin Console System doesn't include a Twinax Controler and an IOP, which are a lot more expensive than the Thin Console). This probably just means that your BP did the right thing. For the reliability problems you've described, i've never encountered them. But the inability to do remote access, well. Every PC server can do it for a few bucks for a RSA II Card or iLO License. I do wonder if IBM will ever offer a fully usuable, nonexpensive console option. -----Original Message----- From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Franz Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 5:02 PM To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion Subject: Re: Thin Console I've only installed one, but would agree with Lukas's observations. At the time (december) Neoware had no documentation mentioning an iSeries/System i, and IBM had minimal mention of this product. System came shipped with twinax as console - had to use front panel to alter. This is not Neoware's fault, but watch the IBM order - if it has twinax controller, they may "assume" twinax console. btw-would have politically killed the deal to use a twinax console... Neoware unit lost contact twice with system over 4 day period, and was powered by UPS (never plug your console into the wall!) Having said that - I love the idea of a non-twinax, non-windows, very simple setup console. The problem I see is that a console should be a "quality" product, in fact every access device to a system should be a quality product. Cheap cr*p has no place here. My only concern with products IBM has not blessed is maintaining compatibility. Been burned more than once. jim franz ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lukas Beeler" <l.beeler@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 1:13 AM Subject: RE: Thin Console By now i've deployed seven systems with a Thin Console. Here's what i wrote earlier about it: http://projectdream.org/wordpress/2007/01/04/ibms-thin-console/ It's a very unfinished product. -----Original Message----- From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Paul Nelson Sent: Wed 07.03.2007 00:50 To: Midrange-L Subject: Thin Console List, A client has had a BP propose using the new thin client as his console. Have any of you had any experiences with this? Good and bad? Paul Nelson Cell 708-670-6978 Office 708-425-4198 nelsonp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.