RE: Upgrading V4R5 --> V5R1

[Neil Palmer <NeilP@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marketing ploy ?  I don't think so in this case.
Take the model 400 for example that won't run V5R2.  It can probably
barely run V5R1 (I would suggest staying at V4R5 unless you REALLY want to
use some new V5R1 feature).  The minimum memory on any presently sold
iSeries model is 256MB and the lowest CPW of current models is:
CPW 465 (SStar processor model 270)
CPW 150 (Pulsar processor model 270 from 2000)
CPW  50 (model 250 - but that's just a toy for a programmers basement or
software demos anyway  ;-)  )

The maximum memory on a model 400 (first generation RISC processor) is
224MB (160MB on the 2130) and the CPW goes from 13.8 to a whopping great
35.

I agree completely that the decision not to enhance DDS in V5R1 sucks big
time !

...Neil





"jt" <jt@ee.net>
Sent by: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
2001/11/22 22:01
Please respond to midrange-l


        To:     <midrange-l@midrange.com>
        cc:
        Subject:        RE: Upgrading V4R5 --> V5R1


Don,

I don't like this trend, either...  Nor do I understand the necessity...
Are the processors THAT different...?

Best thing about the 38 was that (IIRC) you could run CPF 8.0 on a
B-model.
Processors may have been more-or-less identical back then, though. Haven't
read _Inside the AS/400_ by Dr. Soltis.  Maybe the advance in technology
makes it less feasible to support old hardware...  I dunno...

I'm skeptical, though, because of IBM's choice not to enhance DDS.  I
don't
believe it would be that costly to implement new keywords to provide
access
to the new technologies found in V5 SQL.  ICBW...  But because I don't
think
it'd be costly for them to enhance DDS, and they just choose not to in
order
to "force" the market into a desired direction..  Well, I can't help but
wonder if this is the same principle being applied, and that's what keeps
old hardware from running newer releases.

Can only guess at these things.. because those cost numbers will never see
the light of day...


I may be overly optimistic, but I'm hoping this dropping of old hardware
is
more of a marketing-"ploy"..  (In addition to being a method of driving
revenues.)


jt


> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Don
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 9:22 PM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: Upgrading V4R5 --> V5R1
>
>
>
>
> I'm curious which model they're gonna drop with the 5.2 announcement...
>
> I just don't like this trend...
>
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, Glenn Ericson wrote:
>
> > --
> > [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
> > This is not  the official  announcement  but an official IBM URL that
> > states this.
> >
> http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/iseries/support/planning/futu
> rehdwr.html
> >
> > At 09:58 PM 11/21/2001 -0500, Oludare wrote:
> > >Could you direct me to the IBM announcement that refers to model 510.
> > >
> > >Thanks
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Glenn Ericson" <Glenn-Ericson@att.net>
> > >To: <midrange-l@midrange.com>
> > >Cc: "Oludare" <oludare@ix.netcom.com>
> > >Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 7:19 PM
> > >Subject: Re: Upgrading V4R5 --> V5R1
> > >
> > >
> > > > --
> > > > [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
> > > > At 06:51 PM 11/21/2001 -0500, "Oludare" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Hi guys,
> > > > >
> > > > >I'm upgrading my OS, should I be concern about hardware or
software
> > > > >compatibility.  I currently have a 9406-510 2144.
> > > > >
> > > > >Thanks
> > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > AS/400 Models 436, 40S, 500, 510, 530, 50S, 53S are not planned
> > > >   to be supported by OS/400 releases after V5R1.
> > > >
> > > > Glenn
> > > > ________________________
> > > > Glenn Ericson,
> > > > Phoenix Consulting LLC ,  New York , NY USA
> > > > Ph.(718)898 9805  Fx .(718)446 1150
> > > > mailto:Glenn-Ericson@att.net