Re: Memory costs

[Brian <system.i.lists@xxxxxxxxx>]

Larry,

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I suspect that is the case and that the
BP may have fudged a bit on their explanation for the misconfiguration or at
the very least I misunderstood it. From your explanation, I don't doubt that
the BP or the distributor's configuration specialist simply entered 8GB
into IBM's configurator and it spit out a configuration with 2 - 4GB
features which, evidently unknown to them, translated into 4-1GB DIMMs per
feature (quads). It appears what should have been configured was one 8GB
feature which would have cost significantly more due to the increased chip
density but which would have left room for growth without leaving memory
sitting on the table.

Kind regards,

BJ


On 3/5/07, Larry Bolhuis <lbolhuis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So the short of it is the BP screwed up because Rochester built what was
> ordered. Rochester ALWAYS Builds what was ordered. We at
> Frankenseries.com <http://frankenseries.com/>, however, build whatever the
> heck we please. And
> sometimes we pay for that.
>
> - Larry