Re: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero

Steve

with all due respect, I can't see how CFINT prevents programmers from using
any technique that is available to them with the development tools they have.

I would go as far as to argue that some quarters are arguing for the
removal of CFINT to prevent them from having to learn the very techniques
that would reduce the requirement for interactive capacity.

Don't get me wrong - I think IBM has botched both their pricing model and
the presentation of the artificial limits imposed to simulate different
hardware capacities, but arguing that CFINT restricts programmers is rather
bizarre from my point of view.

True, it restricts them from doing things as they have ALWAYS done them,
but it certainly doesn't constrain them in the way you are implying.

To reap the benefits of the processing capacity IBM offers at lower cost
they need to change the software architecture.

CFINT is merely IBM's way of saying "if you choose to do things in the
traditional old-fashioned way, I'm gonna reap the maximum benefit".

Whether we agree with this or not, we do have the option of re-engineering
our architecture - it's a question of whether we choose to invest in R&D
for our applications (and thereby get  out from under the so called "tax"
or shell out for hardware and stay stuck with it.

Cheers
Evan Harris

>Chris,
>
>I think you and others miss the point on why cfint is so bad.
>
>With such little cpu available to a pgm, programmers cannot use modern
>coding techniques such as the encapsulation of data and methods that are
>used in c++.
>
>This results in programmers who do not know much about these techniques,
>programs that are lmited in their functionality and applications which are
>limited also.
>
>Sure many iSeries systems do have the horsepower needed for C++, but many
>more do not, so vendors have less incentive to write applications for these
>systems because cfint will prevent their appl from running the way it should
>on many other as400 systems.
>
>The end result: IBM makes some money, modern applications are not written,
>and programmers dont learn to code the way they should.
>
>-Steve Richter
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Chris Rehm" <javadisciple@earthlink.net>
>To: <midrange-l@midrange.com>
>Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:13 PM
>Subject: Re: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero
>
>
> > On Friday 09 November 2001 10:48 am, James Rich wrote:
> >
> > > Yes.  The small customer says, "Slower, smaller capacity hardware is
> > > cheaper to produce.  Those lower prices should mean I pay less for the
> > > machine.  I am getting screwed if I have to pay for high-powered
>hardware
> > > that is then artificially slowed."
> >
> > Your response is a definite, "No it isn't and no you are not." To produce
>a
> > seperate line of hardware to address the lower end of the market would
> > require a different manufacturing line in a plant. The costs associated
> > with this can be very large. If IBM were to need to manufacture a
>different
> > processor configuration for each price point in the market the overall
>cost
> > would he higher to them than the cost of manufacturing all the processors
> > on one production line and just licensing them to different customer
> > requirements.
> >
> > The proof of this is that IBM is the one paying the costs. If they could
>be
> > saving money on the manufacture, they would be. Whether or not they'd pass
> > that on is debatable maybe, but I don't think they chose the CFINT method
> > of handling this so they could pay higher marketing costs.
> >
> > > The big customer says, "I paid a premium for high-performance.  My
> > > expensive machine has the same hardware capacity as the inexpensive
> > > machine.  Why don't I get a lower price if the same hardware can be sold
> > > more cheaply?  I am getting screwed!"
> >
> > "No, you are not." Because IBM offsets some of its manufacturing costs by
> > licensing some machines to smaller users, the overall cost of delivery to
> > the big customer is reduced so they pay less, not more. IBM is not
>crowding
> > out big deliveries by packing small orders into the production line. They
> > are letting the production line run at optimum capacity and they are using
> > the smaller licenses to offset some costs.
> >
> > That would be my answer, but that was just off the top of my head. ;-)
> >
> > > James Rich
> > > james@eaerich.com
> >
> > --
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
>list
> > To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> > or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> > at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
> >
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
>To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
>visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
>or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
>Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
>at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.