|
Loyd.Good point. But a point I made a few hours back and buried in the activity on this thread is:
Since IBM did such a GREAT job on integrating all these things as you have well outlined, why did they NOT integrate the GUI ? Why do we need to even seek alternatives that can (and sometimes have to) run on other platforms? Had they done so, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Most of us would be thumbing our noses at those poor folks who have to piece together a GUI application on Windows, Unix or Linux. Think of 5250 and how well it is integrated into the whole system and then imagine something that delivered the same basic result but in HTML. It'd be cool and perform perhaps better than any alternatives.
The i, as I understood it, was "integration". IBM failing to integrate a GUI into a System i "breaks" the i (Hmmm, sound like the "rain in Spain stays mainly on the plain...."). As I said a while back:
"Give me a native [System i] GUI that I can quickly develop, performs better than other technologies and allows me to go where other technologies cannot go, and we'll have not only a rockin' box, but a rockin' box that sells."
I believe that. Pete Helgren lgoodbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Even better. The value is in the integrated operating environment, as well as in consistency. As Aaron said, integrated security and job logging. Add in work management, output management, ease of backup and recovery, the ease of system management, and that built-in database thing. Why do people clamor for Apple to unchain OS X from the Macintosh? The same reason why people here want to unchain OS/400 \ i5/OS from the system I platform. Now ask yourself: why doesn't IBM offer the greatest integrated OS and database separately? The same reason why Apple locks OS X to the Mac hardware: stability and consistency. Argue all you want about IBM and Apple charging a premium for their systems, but it is an integrated system. Since you control the hardware environment, you can optimize device drivers, the kernel, etc. for the environment. Simply, neither the IBM OS or Apple's OS X would work as reliably on generic hardware. The interactive tax... that another story. Loyd Goodbar Senior programmer/analyst BorgWarner TS Water Valley 662-473-5713 -----Original Message----- From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Booth Martin Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 14:41 To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion Subject: Re: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than SwitchIs the pricing value of the System i in the hardware, or in the consistency of the platform software over decades?Steve Richter wrote:On 12/8/06, Trevor Perry <tperry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:I expect that 4x faster is just a number you made up. And it was not considering apples to apples.this quad core p5 has 4x the CPW of a single core i5: http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/p/hardware/entry/550/91331efa.html here is an ITJungle chart showing the i5 to be 2x the price: http://www.itjungle.com/tfh/tfh110606-story02-fig02.html you dont have to answer of course, but I would like to know what IBM is thinking in terms of pricing of the system i5. The user and vendor community could build a new GUI that works with green screen apps, but such a thing would likely go nowhere if the base i5 remains geared down and over priced. -Steve
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.
midrange.com
