|
java400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 01/23/2005 02:15:46 PM: > I just found out that the IBM JVMs for the iSeries have basically > sucked. We knew that from our own experience, but the truth is that > those things ran at roughly 1/8th the horsepower of the current 1.4.2 > JVM. So *that's* what a 5HP Evinrude sounds like to a hungry fish... :-) Um, dunno what you heard, or from where, but let me set the record straight: any newly-published iSeries specJBB2000 numbers were run on the latest iSeries *hardware* available, but the venerable iSeries implementation of the Java virtual machine spec is still underneath. > I was originally not happy with the idea of getting a standard JVM for > the iSeries and losing some of our platform uniqueness, but if it means > an eight-fold increase in performance, I think I'm okay with it... FWIW, you've had a "standard JVM" on the iSeries since day one; the 'standard' a JVM implementation has to meet is the Java Virtual Machine specification. The mantra? "Collaborate on specification: compete on implementation." It may be too soon to tell, but based on your glowing recommendations we appear to be succeeding in that endeavor. HTH. -blair ___ _ Blair Wyman IBM Rochester ( /_) / _ ' _ (507)253-2891 blairw@xxxxxxxxxx __/__)_/_<_/_/_/_' Opinions expressed may not be those of IBM
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.