RE: Happy i5/OS 2008?

AS/400 :-)

Regards,
Richard Schoen
RJS Software Systems Inc.
"Get the information you need. Now!"
Email: richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web Site: http://www.rjssoftware.com
Tel: (952) 898-3038
Fax: (952) 898-1781
Toll Free: (888) RJSSOFT


-----Original Message-----
----------------------------------------------------------------------

message: 1
date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:10:59 -0500
from: "M. Lazarus" <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx>
subject: Re: Happy i5/OS 2008?

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