× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



On Friday 09 November 2001 02:55 am, Don wrote:

> That's in effect what's going on now.  You buy a config of say 600 CPW,
> but are constrained to only using 45 for interactive until you "BUY" more
> interactive...

Why not try a more honest representation of the truth? You aren't buying a
600CPW machine and being forced to only use 45CPW.

Just tell your clients that IBM doesn't actually make a box as small as the
45CPW one they want so what they do is discount a much more powerful
machine and sell it with the agreement your customer will only use it at
the level they've purchased.

> Well, from a person that used to using ALL of the 1.7ghz of their servers
> on the intel platforms to look at a proposal and realize that they're
> paying $110,000USD for a machine that they can only use 45/600th of, is a
> bit of an annoyance and one helluva SOB to sell!

See, there is the real problem. The people are stupid enough to measure
computing performance by processor speed. But then, if they bought their
1.7GHz processors and they wanted to use all the 1.7GHz, I sure understand.
But how much would they complain if they bought their 1.7GHz processors and
Intel shipped 3.4GHz chips hobbled down to 1.7GHz? They bought 1.7GHz and
they got 1.7GHz, does it matter what the vendor did to provide it?

> Nathan, would you pay $110,000 for a system you were only allowed to use
> 7.5% of!?  These numbers are approximate, but close enough to what I was
> faced with this week in trying to talk a Fortune 100 client to upgrade...

See, the answer to your question is a qualified, "Yes." I would happily pay
$110,000 for a machine I am only allowed to use 7.5% of if the value of the
portion I get to use has a value greater than $110,000. Also, I'd of course
be looking for an alternative that gave the same value for less than the
$110,000.

> OH, BTW, the Intel servers would only could a couple grand....FAR from teh
> $110,000 +/- so we're faced with the same kinda scenerio Borts was down at
> JC Penney....

Well, look Don, if the $110,000 iSeries is only doing the work that can be
easily replaced by a few thousand dollars of Wintel, why would you pitch it
as the solution in the first place? Is there something more to the
equation? Like maybe the applications needing to run or the support costs
or something?

> Don in DC

--
Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...
...Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other
commandment greater than these. Mark 12:30-31


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.