Dean Kent wrote: >I find it hard to believe >that IBM would spend the money for mainframe >processors to keep pace when there isn't really >much of an incentive to do so.
Why is it hard to believe that IBM would invest huge sums in a fast growing market with significant demand elasticity? That's logical and rational business behavior. Ted MacNEIL wrote: >Proof, please! That's a strange request. You'd think the person making the extraordinary claim that emulation offers higher performance than non-emulation would be the one challenged to prove such a claim. But OK.... Phil Payne did an analysis of MIPS performance via emulation, and it's quite easy to find his comments online. Whether you agree or disagree with him, he provides some numbers at which to throw darts. In his analysis he asserts that 4 Itanium processors, combined, just might manage 170 zMIPS, to be generous. For comparison, that figure is lower than the smallest original (non-turbo) z900 processor (2064 Model 101) that shipped nearly 7 years ago. Tom Marchant writes: >I was disputing the statement that an Itanium >can emulate instructions faster than z silicon. Listen to Tom Marchant, for he is smart here. Tom Marchant also writes: >Actually, IBM is an acknowledged leader in processor design and >microelectronics technology. Smart again. :-) - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Specializing in Software Architectures Related to System z Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan and IBM Asia-Pacific E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
