@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Computerworld: London Stock Exchange to Abandon Windows
All of which serves little more than to stifle innovation, competition
and progress, and maintain a "virtual shortage" of lawyers. What was
that legislation enacted by CONgress a few years ago that is derisively
c
1 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> > Subject: Re: Computerworld: London Stock Exchange to Abandon Windows
> >
> >
> > But isn't there a legal distinction between translation in
> > memory which
> > is transient and hard coded (in millicode or silicon
We're very, very close to having 255 (or more) z CPUs. Here in Japan we
have customers (plural) each running hundreds of IFLs. And that's only
their IFLs. If they could stuff them all into one frame, they would.
Someday I imagine they will.
Let's extrapolate. The z900 shipped at year end 2000. I d
), and that x86 processors be numbered from
256-65535.
John P. Baker
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Tony Harminc
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 6:51 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Computerworld: London Stock Exch
essor t
John P. Baker
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Tony Harminc
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 6:51 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Computerworld: London Stock Exchange to Abandon Windows
2009/7/8 McKown, J
2009/7/8 McKown, John :
>> p.s. Shouldn't implementation of x86 and above be just a different set of
>> millicode?
>>
>> Dave Gibney
>
> Such microcode would likely require a license from Intel and perhaps even AMD
> (IIRC, Intel has licensed some of AMD's x86-64 functionality).
IBM used to m
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 13:52:24 -0700, Gibney, Dave wrote:
>IANAL, nor am I an engineer :) But, I doubt millicode is frozen in
>hardware. I've always thought it to be machine instructions in "ROM" or
>what they call "licensed internal code"
>
Machine instructions in memory. IIRC it goes into HSA. T
nal Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf Of Ken Porowski
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 1:41 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Computerworld: London Stock Exchange to Abandon Windows
>
>
>
> But isn&#x
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ken Porowski
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 3:41 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Computerworld: London Stock Exchange to Abandon Windows
>
>
&
But isn't there a legal distinction between translation in memory which
is transient and hard coded (in millicode or silicon)?
-Original Message-
Gibney, Dave
And, yes John, there might be patent and license implications. I was
asking about the possibility, not the likelihood or legal
>
> > p.s. Shouldn't implementation of x86 and above be just a different
> set
> >of millicode?
>
> Umm
>
> Well, I suppose you could look at it that way. According to Charles
> Webb's
> presentation on the z10 (or z6 as it was called at the time) 668 of
the
> 894
> instructions on the z10
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 12:35:29 -0700, Gibney, Dave wrote:
> A. Tongue was in cheek.
Sorry, I didn't notice the smiley.
> B. As an example, the document imaging solution we use runs under
>Windows Server 200?, some dozen squatty boxes. If Windows Server 200?
>ran on zHardware, we could save severa
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Gibney, Dave
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 2:35 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Computerworld: London Stock Exchange to Abandon Windows
>
.ua.edu] On
> Behalf Of Tom Marchant
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 6:52 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Computerworld: London Stock Exchange to Abandon Windows
>
> (reformatted)
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 16:23:48 -0700, Gibney, Dave
wrote:
>
> >Paul Gilmartin wro
>>> On 7/8/2009 at 9:51 AM, Tom Marchant wrote:
-snip-
> And what benefit do you think that there is in doing that anyway?
The same as any other server consolidation effort using z/VM:
- Floor space
- Power
- Cooling
- Network hardware
- Immense flexibility
- probably lots more, but it's early
(reformatted)
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 16:23:48 -0700, Gibney, Dave wrote:
>Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:28:29 -0500, McKown, John wrote:
>> >
>> >Proportedly, Windows can run on z
>> >
>> But why would anyone choose to run Windows on z? Aside from:
>>
>> o He can afford a z,
st [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 3:25 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Computerworld: London Stock Exchange to Abandon Windows
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:28:29 -0500, McKown, John wrote:
>
> >> -
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:28:29 -0500, McKown, John wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
>> [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
>>
>> But, Linux runs on z. Windows doesn't. It's a big step in the right
>> direction.
>
>Proportedly, Windows can
2009/7/6 Timothy Sipples :
> Ken Porowski writes:
>>Looks like they picked Linux as the platform to go forward with.
>
> The Computerworld article doesn't actually say that. In terms of factual
> assertions the article only claims that the LSE has decided to move off
> Microsoft Windows. The author
Ken Porowski writes:
>Looks like they picked Linux as the platform to go
>forward with.
The Computerworld article doesn't actually say that. In terms of factual
assertions the article only claims that the LSE has decided to move off
Microsoft Windows. The author of the article then takes his own e
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Post
> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 11:56 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Computerworld: London Stock Exchange to Abandon Windows
>
> >
>>> On 7/6/2009 at 12:36 PM, Mikhail Ramendik wrote:
> 2009/7/6 McKown, John
>
>>
>> Proportedly, Windows can run on z. z/VOS (CMS based) from Mantissa is said
>> to allow MS Windows (unmodified) to run under z/VM. It is some sort of "jit"
>> type intepreter / compiler for x86.
-snip-
> I wond
2009/7/6 McKown, John
>
> Proportedly, Windows can run on z. z/VOS (CMS based) from Mantissa is said
> to allow MS Windows (unmodified) to run under z/VM. It is some sort of "jit"
> type intepreter / compiler for x86.
>
> http://www.mantissa.com/SHARE-conference
>
I wonder how that would benchma
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 11:20 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Computerworld: London Stock Exchange to Abandon Windows
>
> Ken
Ken Porowski wrote:
Full article
http://blogs.computerworld.com/london_stock_exchange_to_abandon_failed_w
indows_platform
Looks like they picked Linux as the platform to go forward with.
Probably not on z though.
But, Linux runs on z. Windows doesn't. It's a big step in the right
directi
Full article
http://blogs.computerworld.com/london_stock_exchange_to_abandon_failed_w
indows_platform
Looks like they picked Linux as the platform to go forward with.
Probably not on z though.
-Original Message-
Timothy Sipples
I saw this on Slashdot:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09
I saw this on Slashdot:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/03/1216250
- - - - -
Timothy Sipples
IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect
Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific
E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com
-
27 matches
Mail list logo
