|
> Now, if those applications truly performed significantly worse...it > wouldn't be worth the hassle. In our case the mantra does work - it could > for many others but it's not a guarantee. Now, that I've added potential > fuel to the fire I think I will go back to read mode..... No, I think you've made my point very well. In some (many?) circumstances, a 10% performance hit is acceptable vs. the PC hardware when you think of it as consolidating the workload and getting rid of some boxes. Some (many?) iSeries people may accept that tradeoff as a reasonable cost of doing business. And that's OK. The problem comes in when the PC guys make good on their claim of being able to do it cheaper AND faster. Not every shop has to worry about that particular issue, as they may have a good centralised IT plan. We're an ISV, and need to sell the hardware so we can sell our software. What I'm getting at is that IBM shouldn't relegate e-tasks to the '10% slower' bin; rather, I'd like to see e-tasks twice as fast on iSeries as on cheap PC hardware. Why make excuses when we could be bragging? --buck
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.