Re: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than Switch

[Pete Helgren <Pete@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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 Switch
>
> Is 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
> >     
>
>
>