----- Original Message ----- From: "john gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 1:04 PM Subject: Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
> > Unless you two are prepared to formulate your positions carefully enough so > that we can have a clear notion of what you are disagreeing about, this > thread is going to continue to generate much heat and no light (and should > be killed). > > Alright, excellent suggestion - though I'm not sure I will be able to provide as much specific detail as some may want. I have been involved with discussion about non-mainframe CPUs for several years on various forums and newsgroups, such as comp.arch, Ace's Hardware, etc.. Mostly lurking, but occasionally contributing. During this time, I have repeatedly seen the opinion that mainframe processors are slower than x86, Itanium and RISC processors (which include PA-RISC, SPARC, POWER and the now-defunct Alpha). The reasoning given is that in those markets, processors are routinely compared based upon their integer and floating point computing speed, and that mainframe processors simply cannot compete in these metrics. There is general agreement that mainframes are very good at what they do - which is business data processing that consists of a lot of I/O. It is also generally believed that the mainframe does OK at transaction oriented computing but that distributed platforms are much better for this. In fact, there are some who believe that clustered computing is better than the mainframe even in the traditional mainframe applications. So, when I saw Steve Thompson's question about why people believe mainframe processors are slower, I posted that they are. This was based upon information gathered from people who are involved with chip design, and whom I presumed had better information than I. As I indicated in my recent reply to Ed Jaffe - if anyone has data that would contradict that perception, I would be very happy to hear it. I would love to be able to prove that mainframe processors are not slow, even if they are not faster. To this point, however, what I have heard is a lot of orthogonal discussion that does nothing at all to address the specific question of processor speed. In other words, whether it actually is important or not to mainframes, it is a question that many *do* believe is important. Since they do (and they are either decision makers, or influence decision makers), that makes it important in my opinion. And therefore, is useful to discuss. And, while it may sound like a wonderful debating technique, simply saying "You made the assertion, now prove it" doesn't further the discussion at all. In fact, it is akin to saying "If you can't prove it, then it isn't true", which is, of course a fallacy. Just because something can't be proven does not mean it isn't true. You establish its falsehood by providing the facts showing it to be false. Otherwise, it is *still* a valid opinion to hold, however annoying it may be. Regards, Dean ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
