Re: Intel delays Merced

>At 10:57 PM 6/2/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>So, if IBM gave Rochester the go-ahead we could see a 128-bit AS/400
>>before Intel gets their lowly little 64-bit chip on the market !   :-)
>
>Neil,
>
>Maybe so.  However the world has been so underwhelmed by 64 bit processing,
>I can't see it getting excited about 96 or 128.
>
>What Rochester failed to do with the 64 bit AS/400 is to deliver any
>splashy applications that clearly could not be duplicated on any other
>processor.
>
>Al

Al--

It wasn't a 64-bit application, but it was a 64-bit technology and IBM _has_
delivered it: single level store. This allows not only the ability to
effectively manage physical storage and memory space, but also provides the
mechanism with which to support persistant objects.

There is an article in the current issue of PC magazine (the one with 2000
on the cover) that elaborates on the benefits of 64-bit technology and even
throws a bone to those processors that deliver it today. However, was the
AS/400 mentioned? Noooo. Single level storage was described as though it
were nirvana and maybe, maybe someday it will be here. Sigh.

The AS/400 remains the Garland Jeffreys of computerdom. Garland has more
talent in the dirt under his fingernails than Micheal Bolton has everywhere,
but Michael Bolton outsells Garland by an order of magnitude. AS/400 shops
the world over should quit losing sleep over the AS/400's marketing campaign
and simply buy Garland Jeffreys' records. You'll sleep better at night
knowing you've done the right thing.

On another subject, Al: What's your take on the Software Subscription plan?

rp


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---