Memory v. Storage: What's in a Name? (Was: IBM zEnterprise)
I don't remember where I read or heard the story, but I think IBM preferred to use the term storage because memory implied that forgetting is possible. Therefore, to avoid conveying the impression that IBM computers could forget precious information -- or at least to suggest that forgetting was less likely -- storage it was. Nowadays that worry seems rather quaint. But the story makes sense within the context of that time. There are still plenty of people who worry about naming and how to explain new technical concepts in clear, understandable language. Apple, for example, just introduced a retina display on their new iPhone 4. That's a good example of inventing a new term to describe and highlight a distinctive technical feature. To pick another example, the zEnterprise 196 is the first and only server to feature a Redundant Array of Independent Memory (RAIM) subsystem. All memory -- er, storage -- on the system is RAIM-protected. RAIM is close to RAID, and that's intentional (I assume). A lot of people know what RAID is, and so they can quickly understand the basics of RAIM from that frame of reference. HiperDispatch is another example. The System z10's designers came up with some wonderful new technologies to steer work toward the processors that are most likely to have relevant data accessible in more proximate caches, but quite frankly the technical engineering names for those technologies weren't so wonderful. (I don't remember exactly, but it was yet another nondescript acronym with an embedded slash.) So after a bit of discussion the term HiperDispatch was born, and that's a lot easier for everyone to understand and appreciate. I think since more than 10 years have passed it's OK to relate another product naming story publicly. In the run-up to Y2K IBM was working on some patches and updates to PC-DOS. At the time PC-DOS Version 7 was the latest version available. My recollection is that the marketing team initially wanted to call the new product PC-DOS Version 7.01 (Year 2000 Ready) or something very, very close to that. I thought their proposed name was a bit -- how do I put it politely -- awful. I suggested PC-DOS 2000. Not exactly breakthrough thinking, I admit, but sometimes only outsiders (outside the marketing team in this case) can see the obvious. Fortunately the marketing folks liked that name, and so it was that PC-DOS 2000 was born. It's hard to say exactly what that naming change meant, but it was worth at least several million dollars because people could actually find the darn product and understand what it meant in an instant. In a lot of sales catalogs and other listings the (Year 2000 Ready) parenthetical would have been chopped off. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect STG Value Creation Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Memory v. Storage: What's in a Name? (Was: IBM zEnterprise)
Timothy Sipples timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com wrote in message news:ofc10eae10.b2df0377-on48257774.001cdedf-48257774.00282...@us.ibm.c om... I don't remember where I read or heard the story, but I think IBM preferred to use the term storage because memory implied that forgetting is possible. Therefore, to avoid conveying the impression that IBM computers could forget precious information -- or at least to suggest that forgetting was less likely -- storage it was. Nowadays that worry seems rather quaint. But the story makes sense within the context of that time. There are still plenty of people who worry about naming and how to explain new technical concepts in clear, understandable language. Apple, for example, just introduced a retina display on their new iPhone 4. That's a good example of inventing a new term to describe and highlight a distinctive technical feature. To pick another example, the zEnterprise 196 is the first and only server to feature a Redundant Array of Independent Memory (RAIM) subsystem. All memory -- er, storage -- on the system is RAIM-protected. RAIM is close to RAID, and that's intentional (I assume). A lot of people know what RAID is, and so they can quickly understand the basics of RAIM from that frame of reference. HiperDispatch is another example. The System z10's designers came up with some wonderful new technologies to steer work toward the processors that are most likely to have relevant data accessible in more proximate caches, but quite frankly the technical engineering names for those technologies weren't so wonderful. (I don't remember exactly, but it was yet another nondescript acronym with an embedded slash.) So after a bit of discussion the term HiperDispatch was born, and that's a lot easier for everyone to understand and appreciate. I think since more than 10 years have passed it's OK to relate another product naming story publicly. In the run-up to Y2K IBM was working on some patches and updates to PC-DOS. At the time PC-DOS Version 7 was the latest version available. My recollection is that the marketing team initially wanted to call the new product PC-DOS Version 7.01 (Year 2000 Ready) or something very, very close to that. I thought their proposed name was a bit -- how do I put it politely -- awful. I suggested PC-DOS 2000. Not exactly breakthrough thinking, I admit, but sometimes only outsiders (outside the marketing team in this case) can see the obvious. Fortunately the marketing folks liked that name, and so it was that PC-DOS 2000 was born. It's hard to say exactly what that naming change meant, but it was worth at least several million dollars because people could actually find the darn product and understand what it meant in an instant. In a lot of sales catalogs and other listings the (Year 2000 Ready) parenthetical would have been chopped off. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect STG Value Creation Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html If inventing a good name is one thing, reusing it is apparently still better. I know at least 3 IBM products/features that were/are called Hydra. Apparently this is a 'monster'ly well working term. Kees. For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number 33014286 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Memory v. Storage: What's in a Name? (Was: IBM zEnterprise)
Great post, Timothy. Now if only they'd talked to you before renaming System i to IBM i -- perhaps the worst name ever for a product in this Google age! On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Timothy Sipples timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.comwrote: I don't remember where I read or heard the story, but I think IBM preferred to use the term storage because memory implied that forgetting is possible. Therefore, to avoid conveying the impression that IBM computers could forget precious information -- or at least to suggest that forgetting was less likely -- storage it was. Nowadays that worry seems rather quaint. But the story makes sense within the context of that time. There are still plenty of people who worry about naming and how to explain new technical concepts in clear, understandable language. Apple, for example, just introduced a retina display on their new iPhone 4. That's a good example of inventing a new term to describe and highlight a distinctive technical feature. To pick another example, the zEnterprise 196 is the first and only server to feature a Redundant Array of Independent Memory (RAIM) subsystem. All memory -- er, storage -- on the system is RAIM-protected. RAIM is close to RAID, and that's intentional (I assume). A lot of people know what RAID is, and so they can quickly understand the basics of RAIM from that frame of reference. HiperDispatch is another example. The System z10's designers came up with some wonderful new technologies to steer work toward the processors that are most likely to have relevant data accessible in more proximate caches, but quite frankly the technical engineering names for those technologies weren't so wonderful. (I don't remember exactly, but it was yet another nondescript acronym with an embedded slash.) So after a bit of discussion the term HiperDispatch was born, and that's a lot easier for everyone to understand and appreciate. I think since more than 10 years have passed it's OK to relate another product naming story publicly. In the run-up to Y2K IBM was working on some patches and updates to PC-DOS. At the time PC-DOS Version 7 was the latest version available. My recollection is that the marketing team initially wanted to call the new product PC-DOS Version 7.01 (Year 2000 Ready) or something very, very close to that. I thought their proposed name was a bit -- how do I put it politely -- awful. I suggested PC-DOS 2000. Not exactly breakthrough thinking, I admit, but sometimes only outsiders (outside the marketing team in this case) can see the obvious. Fortunately the marketing folks liked that name, and so it was that PC-DOS 2000 was born. It's hard to say exactly what that naming change meant, but it was worth at least several million dollars because people could actually find the darn product and understand what it meant in an instant. In a lot of sales catalogs and other listings the (Year 2000 Ready) parenthetical would have been chopped off. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect STG Value Creation Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- zMan -- I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Memory v. Storage: What's in a Name? (Was: IBM zEnterprise)
Timothy Sipples wrote:
I don't remember where I read or heard the story, but I think IBM preferred
to use the term storage because memory implied that forgetting is
possible. Therefore, to avoid conveying the impression that IBM computers
could forget precious information -- or at least to suggest that forgetting
was less likely -- storage it was.
I heard a similar story about BDAM; it allowed random access. Random?
You mean you don't know where it is? So it became direct access, Oh
yes, in fact we can go directly to the record you want.
{snip]
- - - - -
Timothy Sipples
Resident Enterprise Architect
STG Value Creation Complex Deals Team
IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore)
E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com
--
Kind regards,
-Steve Comstock
The Trainer's Friend, Inc.
303-393-8716
http://www.trainersfriend.com
* To get a good Return on your Investment, first make an investment!
+ Training your people is an excellent investment
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Memory v. Storage: What's in a Name? (Was: IBM zEnterprise)
On 3 Aug 2010 00:19:10 -0700, timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com (Timothy Sipples) wrote: I don't remember where I read or heard the story, but I think IBM preferred to use the term storage because memory implied that forgetting is possible. Therefore, to avoid conveying the impression that IBM computers could forget precious information -- or at least to suggest that forgetting was less likely -- storage it was. Which is why so many of us thought of RAM (with the M standing for Memory), as memory, with disk tape as Storage. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Memory v. Storage: What's in a Name? (Was: IBM zEnterprise)
I don't remember where I read or heard the story, but I think IBM preferred to use the term storage because memory implied that forgetting is possible. Therefore, to avoid conveying the impression that IBM computers could forget precious information -- or at least to suggest that forgetting was less likely -- storage it was. I don't know why this is considered 'new'. Ever since I started doing Capacity Planning, in 1981, it was called 'Storage'. We called it Real Storage, as opposed to Virtual. Then it became Central Storage, as opposed to Expanded. Now, it's Real Storage, again. (Of course, all my Capacity Courses were taught by IbM, so that's probably where I caught the habit of calling Storage) - I'm a SuperHero with neither powers, nor motivation! Kimota! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Memory v. Storage: What's in a Name? (Was: IBM zEnterprise)
On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 11:23 -0400, Ted MacNEIL wrote: Ever since I started doing Capacity Planning, in 1981, it was called 'Storage'. Hell, I was still calling it core 'til 1991 - when Ehrman chided me for it. (Like Aldo Cella, I am no slave to fashion.) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Memory v. Storage: What's in a Name? (Was: IBM zEnterprise)
In 3310ac9d797ec94db8d89ccabdea47a702a7f...@kl1221tc.cs.ad.klmcorp.net, on 08/03/2010 at 10:33 AM, Vernooij, CP - SPLXM kees.verno...@klm.com said: If inventing a good name is one thing, reusing it is apparently still better. Well, reusing RAMAC conveyed an image of seek times in excess of half a second, which mat not be good branding ;-) -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Memory v. Storage: What's in a Name? (Was: IBM zEnterprise)
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, David Andrews d...@lists.duda.com wrote: On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 11:23 -0400, Ted MacNEIL wrote: Ever since I started doing Capacity Planning, in 1981, it was called 'Storage'. Hell, I was still calling it core 'til 1991 - when Ehrman chided me for it. (Like Aldo Cella, I am no slave to fashion.) Actually, core was non-volatile, so you could read your core storage after a power outage. Not with the S370 transistors. The Challenger space shuttle computers had core and the memory was read after the crash. -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
