RE: The Perpetual Myth of iSeries Obsolescence

Could I get a copy of the offline?

Thanks

Bruce "Hoss" Collins
IBM Certified Specialist - eServer i5 iSeries System Administrator V5R3
Cisco Certified Network Associate
AAA Cooper Transportation
Dothan, AL 36303
(334)793-2284 x2434

> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Douglas W. Palme
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:03 AM
> To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
> Subject: RE: The Perpetual Myth of iSeries Obsolescence
> 
> Thanks Joe :)
> 
> I would most certainly agree that the comparison of per cycle cost of
a i
> series versus wintel is significantly higher on a purchase price
basis.
> 
> I did a cost comparison about a year ago for a 520 that if you want, I
> will
> send it to you, I would need to remove some proprietary information
first.
> 
> We compared the purchase price, support costs and ongoing maintenance
> costs
> and suprisingly the 520 over a 3 year period was approximately $3,000
less
> than a comparable Dell.
> 
> Douglas
> 
> 
> On Wed, 3 May 2006 09:26:36 -0500, Joe Pluta wrote
> > > From: Douglas W. Palme
> > >
> > > Joe,
> > > Correct me if I am wrong here but those "expensive CPU cycles" you
are
> > > referring to operate on the batch side, so the cost as far as
> interactive
> > > is concerned is not as heavy.
> >
> > Absolutely, Douglas!  Coupled with the decreasing price of the
> > platform, it's certainly not as burdensome a cost.  But even with
> > that taken into account, the price per cycle of our beloved System i
> > is much higher than the equivalent cycle on a *nix or <shudder>
> > Wintel box.  I'd hazard a guess that it's at least ten times as
much.
> >
> > > I agree there are hidden costs that need to be evaluated including
> what
> is
> > > the best platform for the situation and not all platforms are
> applicable
> > > in all circumstances.
> >
> > Absolutely.  And for the same reason no one technology is applicable
> > in all circumstances.
> >
> > > Certainly no one size fits all methodology here.
> >
> > Again I agree.  The folks that avoided the lemming-like charge to
> Unix/SQL
> > in the 90s or the equivalent stampede to EJB and Struts in the first
> > part of this decade are the ones who still have the money to use the
> > more mature technologies.  (Note that these folks will likely NOT be
> > rushing headlong to rewrite everything in AJAX, either.)
> >
> > At the same time, it certainly helps to have a baseline to compare
> against.
> > In the midrange, we have 5250 as a baseline to compare UI
> > performance.  It's not a perfect baseline especially as interfaces
> > become more interactive, but it's one our users certainly
understand.
> >
> > And for web application architecture, I think JSP Model II is a
> > pretty solid baseline.  There's really nothing you can't do with it,
> > and it's widely available on most platforms.  So it seems reasonable
> > to use it as a baseline to compare things like skills required and
> > development costs and licensing requirements and flexibility of
> deployment.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > --
> > This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L)
> > mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To
> > subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit:
> > http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l or email:
> > MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment
> > to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
> 
> 
> If you bought it, it was hauled by a truck - somewhere, sometime.
> 
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
> list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.