I don't quite understand the confusion either between BC and EC. I always kept
them straight by remembering that B is before E in the alphabet, so therefore
the BC is the smaller one. Also, you can think B for Basic.
Eric
Timothy Sipples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted, what are the
To me (and IBM) they are (B)usiness and (E)nterprise class machines.
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:14:49 -0600, Eric Bielefeld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I don't quite understand the confusion either between BC and EC. I always
kept them straight by remembering that B is before E in the alphabet, so
To me (and IBM) they are (B)usiness and (E)nterprise class machines.
The confusion comes with the overlap and all the zIIP/zAAP options.
I don't have a problem; my management did.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For
Matthew Stitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me (and IBM) they are (B)usiness and (E)nterprise class machines.
Uh...ok. And the difference between a 'business' and an 'enterprise' is? I
remember when 'enterprise' was the new word for a business. That really
doesn't help.
The arcana of IBM
IBM has announced the new generation at the top of its range ever since the
370/165.
This time, it has been suggested, large and small might come closer together
than has been
normal - perhaps a half year gap. What interests me is the physical
granularity. Will the
new packaging allow the
I don't quite understand the confusion either between BC and EC. I always kept
them straight by remembering that B is before E in the alphabet, so therefore
the BC is the smaller one. Also, you can think B for Basic.
Eric
Timothy Sipples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted, what are the
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Timothy Sipples
Sent: 22 Januarie 2008 05:50
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: New Mainframes coming in February
I have found that my company (before downsizing me) was totally
confused with the EC/BC determinations.
I wish IBM would try to simplify
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 01/21/2008
at 04:12 PM, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Whose trademark is Firewire?
I believe that it's an Apple® trademark for an IEEE standard that Apples
does not own.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Payne
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 2:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: New Mainframes coming in February
The announcement in February is scarcely news. I predicted
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:05:37 -0600, McKown, John
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm more interested in the new instructions, and any enhancements to the
architecture itself (if any). The only way that we will get one is if it
is cheaper (in hard dollars) than our current z9BC.
Assuming things stay
But perhaps part of the grand plan is to only have one very scalable model
moving forward. Guess those of us not under NDA will find out soon...
I have found that my company (before downsizing me) was totally confused with
the EC/BC determinations.
I wish IBM would try to simplify their
In a message dated 1/21/2008 3:39:23 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wish IBM would try to simplify their offerings.
I've dealt with their marketting cr*p for 27 years, and I find their
distintions only make sense to IBM
Lots of possibilities. Based on same
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:01:54 EST, Ed Finnell wrote:
Lots of possibilities. Based on same matrix as G6 guess it would logical to
make it a Zipper chip*? Wonder if we can firewire sysplexes together like the
XBoxeslots of possibilities
*That would be interlocking slide fastener for the
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 5:12 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul Gilmartin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-snip-
Whose trademark is Firewire? (And how can one do a trademark search?)
http://www.uspto.gov/
Mark Post
--
For
I have found that my company (before downsizing me) was totally
confused with the EC/BC determinations.
I wish IBM would try to simplify their offerings.
I've dealt with their marketting cr*p for 27 years, and I find
their distintions only make sense to IBM sales.
Ted, what are the confusing
The announcement in February is scarcely news. I predicted 'late 2007 or early
2008' back in
June 2005 ( http://www.isham-research.co.uk/mainframe_2008.html ) and the dates
have only
firmed up since then.
Shipment in 1Q is a mild surprise - I was expecting April.
Whilst I happily accept the
snip-
The announcement in February is scarcely news. I predicted 'late 2007 or early
2008' back in
June 2005 ( http://www.isham-research.co.uk/mainframe_2008.html ) and the dates
have only
firmed up since then.
Shipment in 1Q is a mild surprise - I was expecting
Mark,
You can use the IBM announcement website with the following URL:
http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/index.wss
Within the Type of content: pull down, select the HW SW desc (Sales
manual, RPQ) item. Then select the Advanced search hyperlink. Then enter
machine type in the Product
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:56:33 -0500, Ken Porowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
From IBM's 4Q 2007 Earnings announcement
http://www.ibm.com/investor/4q07/presentation/4q07prepared.pdf
Mark Loughridge, IBM's Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Now, this marks the tenth quarter of a
From IBM's 4Q 2007 Earnings announcement
http://www.ibm.com/investor/4q07/presentation/4q07prepared.pdf
Mark Loughridge, IBM's Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Now, this marks the tenth quarter of a long and successful technology
cycle for System z. In 2008 we'll move to our
I've only seen the software ones, maybe someone else on the list has
found one for hardware.
I would usually just search the announcement letters.
-Original Message-
Mark H. Young
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:56:33 -0500, Ken Porowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
From IBM's 4Q 2007 Earnings
21 matches
Mail list logo
