>The contention was that IBM shipping capacity that isn't used "doesn't make >sense".
A contention which I disagree with. It's cheaper to build one type of chip/card, and use other methods to limit capacity, which is what software pricing is based on. I knew, in the mid-1980's, when IBM introduced model groups, that capacity-based pricing was going to introduce headaches. I told IBM this, at the time, but they didn't appear to care. My job has been, for over 30 years, to manage, forecast, and configure processors (and other hardware), and I do not like performing unnatural acts to conform to flawed pricing models. That takes away any value I can bring to the business. IBM, and the ISV's, don't get this. Each pricing solution, IBM comes up with, seems to be more flawed (and complex) than the previous one. Unfortunately, when it's the only game in town, you have no choice but to comply. Complaining (especially to IBM), gets you nothing but a chance to vent your spleen. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
