BINARY order of magnitude? :) Bob Lawrence DBA Boscovs Dept Stores LLC
-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 6:53 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: FW: Fatuities (was 'Another BIG mainframe . . . ') On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 05:34:48 -0400, Phil Smith III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>You are saying that XP is four orders of magnitude more stable than 3.1? >>That means on the order of 10,000 times better. It's not. > >Yeah yeah, ok, not a full order of magnitude but you knew what I meant. >Sheesh. Yeah, but that's the kind of misinformation that makes people think that they should bet the farm on Microsoft. Each of those is indeed an improvement, but some of them are only marginally better. To refer to them as being an order of magnitude better is just not right. I wouldn't categorize *any* of them as being any near that big an improvement. I *might* grant you that XP is an order of magnitude more stable than 3.1. Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
