Re: How are CPU Speed and Overall CPW Related?

> From: Jim Damato <jdamato@dollargeneral.com>

> In your opinion, what do you think is the reason that
> IBM is governing the CPU?  Is there a technical reason
> why they would want to do it?

With all due respect to Alexei Pytel, I believe "governor" is the correct
term.  My hypothesis is that the standard CPU would do more, given more
cache.  I can't think of a technical reason for limiting cache.  But maybe
there's a business reason, which I don't understand.  I'd like an
explanation too.

I believe that if IBM offered better performance for the price, then it
would attract new customers to the platform.  But IBM is in a better
position than I to make that call.

> Is this what you mean, or are you talking about something
> far less nefarious?

The thing that bothers me is the obfuscation.  Customers should have good
information, but they don't.  For example, I recall a thread in which
Patrick Townsend expressed confusion over a C program he wrote to do some
work with stream files.  He compiled the program to run on both Intel and
AS/400.  It blew him away that the Intel processor offered so much superior
performance.  Now it makes sense to me.  The AS/400 had a much slower
processor, which was also probably bridled.

I believe that kind of confusion is widespread.  Customers believe they are
buying "Big Iron", but what they getting is "Little Copper".

I appreciate how IBM provides CPW figures to compare one model to the next.
But IBM seems to either hide or obscure numbers that compare the AS/400 to
Intel.

Nathan.



+---
| 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
+---