Don't forget that IBM/Motorola builds the PowerPC for IBM's AIX boxes,
and AIX is alive and kicking.
I saw a statistic a couple years ago - IBM is still the country's largest
distributor of PC's. Sorry - no reference.
George
Kevin Brown wrote:
>
> TI is going to be producing the Sparc Ultra III for Sun. Alpha is Dead or
> dying. AMD is about to (or has) release the Sledgehammer, their competitor for
> the 64-bit world. Wouldn't surprise me if Motorola got out of the Desktop
> world, but probably not while Apple is selling the systems. It's gonna be fun
> to watch AMD and Intel going head-to-head in the 64-bit world. As long as AMD
> stays in the market, Intel has nothing to fear from Big Bad Uncle Sam coming
> after it for being a Monopoly, but of course Intel hasn't done the things that
> Microsoft did to get their monopoly (or am I wrong?).
>
> > I'm not certain the "only runs on Intel" is much of a distinction. As far as
> > I know Itanium will be the only chip in its league.
> >
> > Cost of development and building a fab is getting just to high for there to
> > be more than one producer. IBM, HP, and Compaq are getting out of the CPU
> > biz. Motorolla probably will too. Don't know about SUN.
> >
> > As for having to upgrade every three years, aren't you the one who says the
> > cost of hardware and the OS is "irrelevant"?
> >
> > (((
> >
> > I used to accept that at face value, but now I wonder about opportunity cost.
> > If MIS saves 20% on hard and soft plant then it can buy 20% more new toys
> > [or the firm can re-invest the money elsewhere] *every* year. The
> > compounding effect will add up.
> >
> > Also, I encounter a lot of entrepreneurs and smaller businesses that are very
> > sensitive to initial costs. A 20% cost difference can be the difference
> > between having a thingamajig and having no thingamajig at all. (For some
> > [many] business models no thingamajig means no business.)
> >
> > )))
> >
> > On Monday 04 March 2002 23:02, you wrote:
> > > Excellent points!!! Especially about the constant upgrade path.
> > >
> > > Consider this:
> > > 1. Assume Java is backward compatible. I think it mostly is,
> > > and the parts that are not, the compiler warns you about using
> > > a depricated api.
> > > 2. Java 1,0 programs still work in a 1.2 JVM, right?
> > > 3. Sun supports their OS's for 5 years after they are declared
> > > at end of life. This announcement was made for Solaris 2.6
> > > about a year ago. Microsoft hasn't supported any product version
> > > for five years yet.
> > >
> > >
> > > With these considerations, figure out the total cost of ownership
> > > for the project, from birth to death. Use Microsoft's track
> > > record. You know they will force you to upgrade OS at least
> > > every 3 years. Also consider the price of hardware. Sun boxes
> > > and AIX boxes are more expensive than Intel-based Compaqs or IBMs.
> > >
> > > Have fun!
> > >
> > > George
> > >
> > > Sundar Narayanasamy wrote:
> > > > Joseph,
> > > >
> > > > This is what I infer by reading .NET, though I might be biased as I have
> > > > successfully worked/implemented quite a few J2EE projects.
> > > >
> > > > 1. .NET is not just a framework on how to develop your
> > > > application, you have to buy middle layer support that would enable you
> > > > to run .NET apps. Of course these middle layer products are released by
> > > > M$ and you pay a hefty price for that.
> > > > Even J2EE needs J2EE complaint servers to support
> > > > their framework, but you can get better than commercial grade free
> > > > software like JBoss, Enhydra totally free.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Even when you buy M$ software, lot of times you have
> > > > to train your employees and/or pay lot of money for support contract
> > > > with M$.( I am implementing MS SMS for our company and had few questions
> > > > about certain things, but when I asked the questions in their News
> > > > Group, one of the M$ representative politely asked me take advantage of
> > > > their current specials on training sessions-- i.e $3000 for one day
> > > > session in Las Vegas)
> > > >
> > > > 3. .NET implements M$ way of developing applications
> > > > that are tightly integrated to one another(though they claim otherwise).
> > > > It is not based on MVC model, which any object oriented programmer would
> > > > swear by.
> > > >
> > > > 4. I haven't yet read field case studies on successful
> > > > enterprise level .NET implementations outside Microsoft; whereas J2EE
> > > > has many to go by.
> > > >
> > > > 5. And since M$ always ties their software releases with
> > > > Operating System and Servers, you have to upgrade your hardware/software
> > > > regularly to get continuous support from M$ and their vendors. My
> > > > philosophy is - if it works why fix it. ( We have some old Venix
> > > > systems, which we still use actively; they work!)
> > > >
> > > > etc..
> > > >
> > > > Sundar
> > > >
> > > > Joseph Gledhill wrote:
> > > > >I need some legitimate reasons not to go with .NET as a development
> > > > >platform. Any comments would be appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > >thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > >Joseph
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)