On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:25:52 -0600, Mark Zelden wrote: >On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 12:50:02 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote: > >> >>We can disagree about this. >> >>... if they are able to make money selling the systems with >>kneecapped engines, it is a marketing gimmick to sell the exact same >>hardware that is allowed to run full speed. >> > >I see what you are both saying. I guess it's the "gimmick" part I don't >really agree with. Finding ways to manufacture something cheaper but >still giving the consumer a product for the same price that does the same >thing or better (if you consider the technology dividend in the specific >case of system z) doesn't seem like a gimmick. It's smart business.
I don't follow what you are saying here. Of course it is good to find ways to manufacture something less expensively. The kneecapped machines are not less expensive to manufacture though. >In other words, to the end user, what's the difference in the inside parts >changed and I am still getting a good deal. Would you feel better if >IBM manufactured **130 different engine types for the z10 and you got >the one rated at the MSU level you get today? No. That would be absurd. What is the benefit of 130 different capacity settings? Only one that I can think of: Software costs. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
