Re: AS/400 Server.

Why not just label the platform as "Silverlake" with various models like the AS400, the i, etc? Is there anyone who cares about the name of the hardware? Is "Body by Fisher" really a big deal for Chevrolet owners?

heh heh... My own preference would be real names for the various models. Like the Silverlake Gopher, Silverlake Buffalo, and the Silverlake K2. :) There is no reason why there can't be 3 or 4 current models, similar but distinct, in the Silverlake catalog.

The argument that the platform lost luster because the name is old misses the evidence of the thousands of long-established brands that are not seen as "legacy" but are instead seen as surviving because they are "best of breed."

Our platform is still a huge player because it is "Best of Breed." Our platform is still a competitive advantage. We have become one of the best kept secrets in the World, thanks to incredibly good sales efforts from talented sales people overcoming horrific obstacles put in their way by the dunderheads in IBM's marketing offices. (there is a difference between sales and marketing. They are not redundant or overlapping functions.)

And no, I am not picking on Trevor. Trevor is playing the hand we were dealt, as we all are. He's hanging his hat and his ass out on the line for all of us, and I for one truly appreciate his energies and efforts.








On 5/10/2013 11:53 AM, Monnier, Gary wrote:

I'd really like to see IBM place their emphasis on the software rather than the hardware. Something like...

IBM i/OS 7.1 running on Power Systems 7, 6 and 5
IBM i/OS 6.1 running on Power Systems 7, 6 and 5
IBM i/OS 5.4 running on Power Systems 4 and 5
IBM i/OS 5.4.5 running on Power Systems 4 and 5

A suggestion for what it is worth. May be trademark issues now with Apple's iOS.

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of CRPence
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 9:38 AM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: AS/400 Server.

On 10 May 2013 07:08, Anderson, Kurt wrote:

I always try to call our system what it is, a Power 7 running IBM i
7.1. However, the Cumulative PTF DVD we just got from IBM says this:

System i5
OS/400 Cumulative PTFs
V7R1M0...

Made me chuckle.

I will not offer what is my guess as to why nobody has changed the
first two mis-references, but...

The conspicuous difference between V#R#M# and V.R will probably
remain. The latter was purely a /marketing/ aspect; i.e. for naming
consistency in marketing: "IBM OS\product Version.Release". The OS
however, still maintains the V##R##M## information as integral data, and
the support\service identification [e.g. PTFs] mimics that pattern
specific to the OS. There is little reason that should ever change, and
some good reasons not to change that naming; e.g. there is no benefit
for consistency in cross-platform release naming, for the ability to
search technical databases of a single platform, especially for which
the dot-separated-digits do not provide for a well-formed search token
that is conspicuously not just some decimal number or even a date.

Of course that does not mean to imply they could not *additionally*
include the proper marketing name on the service-related labeling.