Re: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero

["Nathan M. Andelin" <nandelin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: "Chris Rehm" <javadisciple@earthlink.net>
> Because IBM offsets some of its manufacturing costs by
> licensing some machines to smaller users, the overall cost of delivery to
> the big customer is reduced so they pay less, not more. IBM is not
crowding
> out big deliveries by packing small orders into the production line. They
> are letting the production line run at optimum capacity and they are using
> the smaller licenses to offset some costs.

IBM is "licensing some machines"?  But licensing is the domain of software,
not hardware.  If IBM were to classify "Interactive Features" as software,
then the licensing point would make sense.  In a hardware context, it
doesn't.

The problem is that IBM classifies "Interactive Features" as hardware.
Installs a dummy card to support that notion.  Complains that Fast400 offers
"unpurchased capacity".

If that line of thinking were taken to the next level, then any software
installed that was more efficient than an OS/400 alternative, should be
classified as offering unpurchased capacity.  Sounds like illogical nonsense
to me!

In my opinion, hardware capacity is defined primarily by physical
attributes.  In contrast, Interactive Features are defined by OS/400.  To
attempt to blur the difference is a big mistake.

Nathan M. Andelin
www.relational-data.com