RE: Cheaper Servers?

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Honestly Ken, and I don't mean to trip a wire, but I think your points
were all jumbled together.

>I see no reason why, the console authority could not be built into the
user profile.
I wasn't even discussing console authority.  I did discuss leaving your
console at home and bringing your favorite client.  But that was not as a
security measure, just a lugging concern.

> cost of smaller boxes to run a small business
I am not talking about physical size for the moment.  Let's talk about
disk size, etc.  I don't see how IBM could make the machines with any less
capacity and still run a business on them.  There has been too much
bloatware in applications and the os over the years.
As far as reducing the costs and seeing if that would increase market
share, both in the low end and the growth market, that's an iffy prospect.
 Not impossible, but iffy.

>slaying microsoft with the latest and greatest client.
First of all, to have a desktop system you would need applications like
word processing, etc.  None of these would be using DB2.  They would all
use the IFS.  And where does OS/400 excel in that?  Especially a lap top
400?
Secondly, there are other choices to MS:  OS/2, Apple, unix, linux, atari,
etc.  So just being the 'me too' isn't going to cut it.  It would take
rock solid applications, lots of them, and great marketing.  And we are
talking about IBM.  Granted, it was the IBM name on the PC's which got
Microsoft started.  But IBM will not stop making PC's.  Thus people would
have a choice of IBM clients, therefore where's the draw?
Last, MS bashing is popular.  At one time so was IBM bashing.  Remember
HAL from "2001 - a space odyssey" was just a one letter shift from IBM.

Rob Berendt
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin




"Shields, Ken" <kenshields@ppg.com>
Sent by: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
04/12/2002 09:30 AM
Please respond to midrange-l


        To:     "'midrange-l@midrange.com'" <midrange-l@midrange.com>
        cc:
        Fax to:
        Subject:        RE: Cheaper Servers?


Rob
                 I see no reason why, the console authority could not be
built into the user profile.
                 The issue has been discussed about how small companies
are reluctant to spend the large
                 chunk of change, the smaller boxes demand.This point is
up for discussion.
                 This fact goes to the root of competition, or lack of it.
                 IMHO Emulation, OpsNav, etc.are just Ascii to Ebcdic
overhead.
                 Heresy you say,....think about it a moment.
                 Windows is a Microsoft acronym, to a large degree
patented; however, I personally do not believe that any
                 worthwhile undertaking in this business is unrealistic.
                 IBM's version of GUI could be called anything their
marketing department cared to coin it.
                 There seems to be a lack of initiative to tackle the big
boy on the block.
                 Eventually however, we can spin our discussions any which
way we want, but the future will always belong to
                 the people who "step up to the plate".
                 How about a Windoze emulation program to the Iseries
/400!
Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: rob@dekko.com [mailto:rob@dekko.com]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 9:38 AM
To: midrange-l@midrange.com
Subject: Re: Cheaper Servers?


This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Here's another thought.

What are the goals?
- to have os/400 on everyone's desktop, unrealistic
- to have a portable 400 for demo's
- to have a 400 for small businesses, already done.

Let's remember, one of the goals of Op's console was to be able to
remotely operate your 400, even in a dedicated mode.  Basically do
everything except stuff the CD's.  Will you still get this with the
xWindows concept?

Let's say you want to market product.  What will your client base be using
on their desktops?  Browsers, 5250, Client/Server, xWindows?  I would say
a bulk of the new sales would be using the first three.  You need to demo
in that then.  Therefore I don't see where using a separate box is a
drawback.  Granted, let's suppose that IBM limited the system console to
Op's console.  You don't need a system console to IPL.  You only need it
to perform upgrades.  Therefore I would see two attachments - 1 for the
op's console, one for the ethernet.  Granted, in a demo situation, you
would have a wire going out of the box into a small hub, and a wire from
that into your client.  But let's face it, in most demos you are going to
have other cables for the overhead projector and all that other junk.  So
it should be hidden in the clutter.


Rob Berendt
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
_______________________________________________
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.