Re: i5....continues... -- MIDRANGE-L

> If they can put Linux and Aix in a little partition, do
> you really think Windows(any version) is a real challenge ???

Ummm... Windows would be MUCH harder to do than either Linux or AIX.  It's
a whole different paradigm!

For starters, IBM has the source code for both Linux and AIX.  You have to
either change the kernel of the OS to make it work, or write a virtual
machine that emulates the environment that the OS was designed for.
Running in a VM would be much slower, and would eliminate all of the
advantages of having a 64-bit CPU -- but if you can change the kernel to
run natively, you're set.

Furthermore, Windows is designed for a single-user per machine scenario.
Yes, I know, they use newer versions for multiple users, but it wasn't
designed from the ground up to do that.  Both Linux and AIX were.  This
makes it much more difficult to implement on hardware that was
specifically designed for a multi-user scenario.

Windows software also always assumes that you have an attached graphical
display.  Again, they could emulate one so that it runs over a network,
but that will both cause problems and hamper performance.

Now, I'm not saying that IBM couldn't do it.  They've got the know-how,
I'm sure they could overcome these problems -- but for sure Windows is a
MUCH bigger challenge than Linux or AIX!!


> This rumor of running Windows "native" has been around
> as long I can remember and frankly I don't know why IBM
> has resisted this for so long...

Because Windows is crap.  The only reason people run it is because
everyone else runs it and because there's a ton of software for it.

If they made it run natively, they'd break compatibility with all of that
software!  Unlike Linux, most software for Windows is NOT open-source.

If they ran it in emulation to keep software compatibility, the
performance would suffer to the point where it would not make ANY sense
for anyone to run it.  Why pay $100000 to run Windows slower than you can
on a $500 box?


> But  ....just think how many desk tops would be replaced
> by one server in most shops...

This makes no sense.  Just because it runs Windows does not mean that it
would replace the desktops!   Windows isn't designed for a multi-user
environment.  If you had Windows running on an iSeries (or i5 or whatever)
you'd use it as a server.  You'd still need lots of desktops.

Or, you'd have to use something like Citrix and you'd have to deal with
the software incompatibilities that go with that, and you'd still need
thin clients.

No matter how you slice it, it wouldn't magically eliminate all of the
desktops.   If it did, it would no longer be Windows because you'd have to
COMPLETELY change the Windows paradigm.

Even if you did change the paradigm, you'd still have to contend with the
fact that all of the existing 32-bit applications would not run.  Unless,
of course, the CPU has both 64-bit and 32-bit instructions -- but then
you'd lose all of the advantages of 64-bit.

In fact, that's how the Intel CPUs work now.  They've got 8-bit, 16-bit
and 32-bit instructions in them.  This allows them to run MS-DOS, Win16
(Win 3.1 / WFW) and Win32 (Win9x/ME/NT/2k/XP) instructions.  The new Intel
and AMD chips that are 64-bit will also have the 32bit, 16bit, and 8bit
instructions so that they're compatible.

And this is one of the great advantages of OUR platform.  Thanks to the
way the system works, you can migrate applications from 32-bit to 48-bit
to 64-bit without needing to rewrite the software.  But this is an aspect
of OS/400, not of the hardware.  If you ran Windows, that advantage
wouldn't be there...

> Can you imagine how much revenue IBM gets from selling
> PC's and the required support in the larger instalations ???
>
> Soooo, is Windows on a single server a good idea ????

A good idea?  No.  Having a "real" alternative to Windows, that runs on
the iSeries hardware would be.