Leif, In my previous post (below) I was just kiddin ya... Now I'm being completely serious, when I say you absolutely DON'T get it: You said "If IBM wants to sell performance they push the pSeries (to wit a full-size add in the WSJ a few days ago)." Once again, you imply IBM doesn't know what they're doing, in their marketing. Did you see the link a few days ago in InfoWorld? (Can't find the link to it now...) Did you see Neil's link about the ENT magazine article today? (http://entmag.com/columns/article.asp?EditorialsID=16395) This was one of Neil's best catches yet...! This article comes (although maybe indirectly) from the work of the iSeries PR department. Do you see these as positive efforts on behalf of the iSeries? Did you see where, in spite of near-universal slump in the industry, iSeries (and zSeries) recorded very respectable GAINS...? ===> BUT HERE'S THE THING: If YOU were in charge of the Server Group Marketing, Leif, where would you spend your ad dollars...?!? (I'd spend them where the competition is eating my lunch, not where there are respectable gains, and little competition.) That's exactly what I'd do, especially if I'd put an iNation in place that could do the Gonzo Marketing to promote the iSeries. This is partially in comment to Chris' post on the non-Tech list: "Linux gets a lot of free publicity, that is good for IBM. It has a reputation that IBM cannot have (underdog, little guy makes good, etc.)." It makes more sense, to me anyone, for IBM to actually GO BACK TO keeping a low profile. Let the supposed passionate iCitizens promote the 400. The iNation COULD (if they chose to) "get a lot of free publicity, that is good for IBM. It has a reputation that IBM cannot have (underdog, little guy makes good, etc.)." (I was gonna post something like this to the iNation list, but it applies to this discussion.) You've always seemed to discount any value to the iNation. Chris just spelled it out. "Underdog, little guy makes good," man-bites-dog publicity. What bugs a lot of folks is that this helps IBM.. but that helps the iSeries Community a lot more. But IBM's pushing the pSeries makes a whole lot of sense, to me anyway, because that's where their heaviest competition is. Makes no difference whether the iNation ever does squat, or not. I disagree that it's me who doesn't get it, Leif. JMHO. jt | -----Original Message----- | From: firstname.lastname@example.org | [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Leif Svalgaard | Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 2:43 PM | To: firstname.lastname@example.org | Subject: Re: Trivia: Processor MHz | Importance: High | | | From: jt <email@example.com> | | > should be able to throw a dozen of the oldest processors they | can make, and | > get some spectacular price/performance, AFAIK, if they took advantage of | > this more. | | you don't get it: "spectacular price/performance" is good for the | customer, | but is bad for IBM, so why would IBM do that? If IBM wants to sell | performance | they push the pSeries (to wit a full-size add in the WSJ a few days ago). | | the AS/400 is only for existing (captive) customers and here the game is | to wrong as many dollars out of those as possible. | | | -----Original Message----- | | From: firstname.lastname@example.org | | [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of jt | | Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 2:18 PM | | To: firstname.lastname@example.org | | Subject: RE: Trivia: Processor MHz | | | | | | Leif, | | | | I haven't caught up on this thread, so don't know if others have already | | pointed this fact out to youse: | | | | | | Per usual... YER ALL HOSED UP...! | | | | | | You stand corrected...: | | | | (Not really...;-) AFAIK, the only software that takes | | advantage of multiple | | processors is the for-cost add-on called something like DB2 for Symetric | | Multi-Processing. The OS will split DB queries amongst | | multiple CPUs for | | you, automagically. | | | | | | That's one area the *nix (and maybe PASE?) just kicks the crap out of | | OS/400... Makes little sense to me, because one of OS/400s greatest | | strengths is near-linear performance gains on multi-processors. | | IOW, they | | should be able to throw a dozen of the oldest processors they | | can make, and | | get some spectacular price/performance, AFAIK, if they took advantage of | | this more. | | | | | | (BTW, thanks for the table, as I'd been wanting to find out | | what a "23C4" | | was...:-) | | | | jt
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.