RE: LPARS (was NT vs. AS/400)

Previous releases would be great for ISV's (which we are).  Instead of
having one machine at V5R1 beta, one at V4R5, V4R1, V3R7 etc, etc.  We
could have one machine with all of them.  And even better would be
FUTURE releases.  That way you could test the new release before
putting it on your production partition!

Actualy, this is something that WindowsNT/2K does TODAY!  Yep.  Check
out www.vmware.com .  On my production Windows 2000 box, I have virtual
machines for all the Windows flavors (Including XP Beta 2).  You
actually boot these VM's with a bios and everything.  Very Slick.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com
[mailto:owner-midrange-l@midrange.com]On Behalf Of jpcarr@tredegar.com
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 12:23 PM
To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
Subject: Re: LPARS (was NT vs. AS/400)


Leif

I have mixed feelings about that.   I'm the person who was proud when
finding a CL program that was last compiled from source back in 1985,
and
is now running at 64 bits and the customer investment protection that
implies.    Having said that,   I also have strange feelings about
people
who still run RPGIII or RPGII "Cause they can".   and old OS releases
for
the same reason.     I don't know why I would like shops to stay
current
it's an emotional thing.   I understand all the economics of why in
certain
instances people don't.      I love the customer investment protection
thing,  but it's a double bladed sword sometimes I think that IBM is
pressured to have backwards support for previous stuff,   which in some
cases causes the rest of to wait on something new,   OR AS John Taylor
has
pointed out,  ends up costing us all more because they have to have
programming support costs for that previous Sh*#.

I think you can run multiple releases on LPAR,   maybe just not
releases
that existed before LPAR was created.

So,  One the one hand,  Investment Protection has been a selling point,
On the other (as demonstrated by your point)   we sometimes hold
Rochester
to a higher standard than other companies.

Maybe I'm way off on this,   It was just a  gut response.

John Carr
-----------------------------------------

From: John Taylor <john.taylor@telusplanet.net>
> For the benefit of anyone else who may not be intimately familiar
with
the
> technology behind LPAR, there is a great article here:
>
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/iseries/beyondtech/lpar.htm#abstra
ct

Just re-read the article. It says in there:
"Previous releases are not supported in a logical partition".
Now that is strange. If the LPAR can run Linux why not V4R1?
or V3R7? for that matter.

What would be the technical reason for this restriction?
Lifting it would be great for all those shops that stay on
older releases for whatever reasons. Also great for
software developers for testing and ensuring backwards
compatibility.

+---
| 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
+---

+---
| 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
+---