The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
[email protected] (Ted MacNEIL) writes: > Why? If you don't need the capacity, what's the issue? > Would you rather pay full hardware & software costs for capacity you don't > need. > > Also, this way, IBM has to build just one processor chip. i.e. aggregate computing cost (for everybody) is actually less with single part number ... than if there were large number of different parts. in early 80s, major analysis of vm/4341s going into every nook & cranny versus "big iron" in the datacenter, was the enormously greater "big iron" expense involved in adding capacity. this can somewhat also be seen with returning to the old timesharing days with cloud computing. having extra capacity already available at the customer site ... is analogous to having on-site spare part depot &/or on-site CE. recent reference to 3033N ... slower than 168/3032 ... but able to be "field upgraded" to full speed 3033: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.html#27 SHAREWARE at Its Finest -- 42yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
