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

That was exactly my point. And my question was: why can't we have that?
My gut feeling is that we could, but IBM marketing won't let us. The
faithful are being screwed again.

From: Bob Crothers <Bob2@cstoneindy.com>
> 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.

> From: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com
> 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
+---