RE: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero -- MIDRANGE-L

Don,

And that is precisely my goal.  However, I took a completely different
approach than Tiger.  I told IBM last June or July that I was going to work
on this.  I have posted recently, that I'm optimistic and would look for
something early next year.  I have no influence on what IBM does, and that
was not why I told them these things.

I merely told them what my plans were, way in advance, to give them the
opportunity to plan their reaction if/when a product is released.

I don't have any crystal ball, or I would know when and whether the product
is actually going to be delivered.  But I am fully aware that IBM can target
the interactive penalty to kick in, on pretty much any process they want to.
At the same time, IBM could decide to eliminate the "tax" altogether.  Or
there response could fall somewhere in between.


I've always considered the market for an interactive penalty killer to be
way, way too risky.  And, coming from a family with a strong tradition in
academia, I've been born and bred to be risk-aversive.  All that to say, my
view is that the primary goal shouldn't be to get around the tax.  And the
primary goal isn't to influence IBM, one way or the other.  I'm in
"co-opettion" with IBM, so I was just letting them know of the
possibilities.


I agree with Chris, BTW, that the customers and user groups can work on
"pressuring" IBM, in this area.  I think there are a number of ways to do
that effectively.  The best way to "pressure" IBM, is to work with "them" to
find alternative ways of replacing that revenue stream, IMV.


jt


"Have a GREAT day...!  And a BETTER ONE TOMORROW~~~:-)" (sm)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Don
> Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 1:57 PM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero
>
>
>
> Chris,
>
> I use the CPU speed as a point of relational reference.
>
> And my guess is that if IBM finds yet another way to "cfint" a processor,
> that someone like Tiger will find the way around it...
>
> jmho...
>
> ----------
>
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, M. Lazarus wrote:
>
> > Chris,
> >
> > At 11/9/01 10:29 AM -0800, you wrote:
> > >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?
> >
> >   Does Intel claim that overclocking is illegal?  Warranty
> issues aside, I
> > would say no.  We are sold something w/ a minimum guaranteed
> speed.  If we
> > find a way to increase that capacity, that is our own business.
> >
> >   -mark
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>