Re: Upgrading V4R5 --> V5R1 -- MIDRANGE-L

> He stated that the pentium 4 is engineered for a 30 GIGAHERTZ
> processor...and he gave us no reasons to believe that neither XP or .net
> server would not be able to run on them....

i meant the old P100 megahertz, not gigahertz. the whole point is that
NOBODY
has new, powerful software for old hardware.
jim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don" <dr2@cssas400.com>
To: <midrange-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: Upgrading V4R5 --> V5R1


>
> Jim,
>
> Beg to differ.
>
> We just had MS do a XP .net server presentation for our users group.
>
> He stated that the pentium 4 is engineered for a 30 GIGAHERTZ
> processor...and he gave us no reasons to believe that neither XP or .net
> server would not be able to run on them....and that these bad boys would
> be out in the fairly decent future....:)
>
> Now, I further predict, that once this does and if MS/Oracle/etc keep USER
> based pricing vs this bullshit processor tiered mess we have to endure,
> that you'll see alot more interest in faster conversion FROM AS/400....
>
>
>
> ------
>
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, Jim Franz wrote:
>
> > remember a while ago, Toronto gave us a "budget" and let us select new
> > features for RPG? Could not go over your budget.
> > Could not afford everything you wanted.
> > How much in new functionality will not be available, in order to add
> > backward compatibility to 4xx & 5xx hardware?
> > If your company makes the financial decision to stay with old hardware,
then
> > to me you've also made the decision to stay with old OS software. (and
you
> > won't see WinXP running on Pentium 100's, and the same in the unix
world).
> > imho
> > jim franz
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Neil Palmer" <NeilP@DPSlink.com>
> > To: <midrange-l@midrange.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 10:27 PM
> > Subject: RE: Upgrading V4R5 --> V5R1
> >
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>