On Jun 20, 2005, at 2:36 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/20/2005
at 03:02 AM, Joe Zitzelberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
I quoted those unrelated prices only to illustrate how absurd it
might be to only consider cost of hardware when making ones decision
on UCS tables.
Almost as absurd as mentioning DASD prices when the issue is RAM.
Certainly RAM prices have fallen, but they are *not* anywhere close to
DASD prices.
In the 30 years I've been watching the hardware market, their prices
tend to move together, always falling over time. But all hardware
does that. Conversely, the cost of programmer labor has sharply
increased. I mention DASD because I was shopping for it that day and
had the prices at hand (read too lazy to hit www.pricewatch.com for
RAM prices). Plus the 80G for $19.95 has a nice shock-impact on
those that will spend (waste) hours of human labor to squeeze every
last byte out of something.
My view of the issue is that some people get tunnel vision about what
the hardware can and cannot support based on long outdated
assumptions. For example, some people still think they are
conserving on storage by using 3-byte adcons -- they haven't yet come
to terms with the reality that the minimum possible size of a
physical memory allocation is a 4k page.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
