RE: NT Costs vs. AS/400

[Glenn Ericson <Glenn-Ericson@xxxxxxx>]

Dale if there are 5- 7 servers  currently, 
by  your numbers, you  blew $20K easy, not counting the
software & support

At 01:22 PM 05/30/2001 -0700, Draper, Dale wrote:

Sounds overpriced to me, but you'd have to look at the specs and the
requirements you gave. How many processors? Sound like a very high end fully
mirrored configuration, probably Compaq. It's possible to purchase a low end
Raided server for 3-4K  so there's lot's of in between.
And if you must, go ahead and go with 2000 not NT.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glenn Ericson [SMTP:Glenn-Ericson@att.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 12:46 PM
> To:   MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> Subject:      Re: NT Costs vs. AS/400
>
> At 02:59 PM 05/30/2001 -0400, Phil.Kestenbaum@FAIRCHILDPUB.com wrote:
>
>
>
>       I was always under the impression that NT boxes were very
> inexpensive compared to AS/400. Today I was quoted a minimum of 25K for an
> NT box to serve as our web server, utilizing AS/400 data. This makes the
> upgrade from a 620 to an 820 much more attractive. Is this price correct
> for NT. Also, the vendor said that it would be hard to get an NT box now,
> that Microsoft was pushing the Windows 2K.
>
>
>
> Phil to  that you can add all the  extra support needed, the cost of
> downtime,and on it goes.  I would not put the NT support into the 620  as
> the INS is magnitudes slower then the 820 and its IXAs ( new name), the
> scalability is also greater in the 8xx series.
>