Re: Happy i5/OS 2008?

Mark,

Yes, I am shouting.

It is simple. If we do not step up and call it what the vendor calls it, we
are propagating its death. While we call it something old, it falls into
history.

We must stop complaining about ~what~ it is named because you don't like it,
and change with the times. Or live in the past? Let's just retire.

And if you think this is ridicule, you are reading WAY too much into my
words. It is merely a kick up the arse.

Trevor



On 12/31/07 11:10 AM, "M. Lazarus" <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Trevor,

It seems to me that the very fact that you need
to keep shouting the new name(s) from the
rooftops over and over, with (apparently) very
few absorbing the info, should be quite
telling. The market seems to have shunned the
new names. Now what? Yell louder? Ridicule
those that don't like it? We still need to
identify this box and / or OS to the people we
speak with. Most don't even know the machine at
all. Out of those that do recognize it, I have
yet to come across someone that knows it by its
new name. NOT EVEN ONE!!! I try to tell them,
but no one is interested. It also really slows
down (read: hinders) a presentation when unfamiliar buzzwords are used.

IBM has picked poor names (on many levels) for
this system and then, adding insult to injury,
has not properly gotten the word out / marketed
the product. Is the end result a surprise to anyone??


1) The new naming (whether we like it or not)
does little to promote the machine. It's the
applications available, support for legacy
applications, new capabilities, reliability, etc.
that sell this machine. It's the pricing and
several other factors including, but not limited
to items such as the lack of an easy to program,
integrated, system supported GUI and IBM's
wishy-washy marketing that hold this machine back from selling.

2) If the bulk of the IBM Midrange faithful can't
keep up with IBM's naming mess, then how do you
expect the public at large to keep up with it?

3) Your comparison to Intel actually works
against you. Let's look at some of their (consumer) chip line.
8088

286
386
486

Pentium
Pentium II
Pentium III
Pentium IV

Dual core
Quad core

Notice a pattern? There is a simple, yet
progressive way that the chips get
identified. The names are easy for the consumer
to remember, even when a new one comes out; III
is better than II, IV is better than III,
etc. IBM for the most part has NOT done this.

BTW, kudos to you for getting up there and
promoting it, but the naming morass is a very
small part of the problem that needs to be fixed
by IBM. Yelling at the supporters of the system will not do it.

-mark