Re: Specifics on the new Z196

2010-08-02 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
In <4c52eb1b.8010...@bremultibank.com.pl>, on 07/30/2010 at 05:09 PM, "R.S." said: >WHO CARES? You, obviously, despite your disingenuous disclaimer. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see We don't care. We d

Re: Specifics on the new Z196

2010-07-30 Thread Greg Shirey
Who was it in this thread that said: This is my last mail in this slash thread. I promise. Greg -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of R.S. Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 10:09 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Specifics on the new Z196 Do you want

Re: Specifics on the new Z196

2010-07-30 Thread Joel C. Ewing
On 07/30/2010 09:40 AM, Phil Smith wrote: ... > As to how you pronounce "z/VM", it's "zee vee em" (or "zed vee em", >in the rest of the English-speaking world). Just as it's "zee oh ess" >(or "zed oh ess"), not "zos" (pronounced as one word, short or long >"o", your choice -- it still isn't! Yeah,

Re: Specifics on the new Z196

2010-07-30 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:00:12 -0400, John Eells wrote: > >It's not being used for new products, if that's what you mean, but we >did not rename the old ones. The z990 was named back in 2003. > Looking at the source of an IBM web page, I see ...alt="IBM eServer"..., so I guess it's permissible, at l

Re: Specifics on the new Z196

2010-07-30 Thread R.S.
Phil Smith pisze: I'd consider an announcement much more official than a random web page about a performance report. The former goes through legal and marketing; the latter doesn't necessarily. Do you want announcement letter? Voila: http://www-01.ibm.com/cgi-bin/common/ssi/ssialias?infotype=

Re: Specifics on the new Z196

2010-07-30 Thread John Eells
Steve Comstock wrote: I thought IBM had moved away from the e(logo) silliness. Guess not. It's not being used for new products, if that's what you mean, but we did not rename the old ones. The z990 was named back in 2003. -- John Eells z/OS Technical Marketing IBM Poughkeepsie ee...@us.ibm

Re: Specifics on the new Z196

2010-07-30 Thread zMan
Sure, but back in 2000 that was the name. They didn't rename it after they ditched "eServer". On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Steve Comstock wrote: > John Eells wrote: > >> R.S. wrote: >> >> >>> Another link with slashes: >>> >>> http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/dzichelp/v2r2/index.jsp

Re: Specifics on the new Z196

2010-07-30 Thread Steve Comstock
John Eells wrote: R.S. wrote: Another link with slashes: http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/dzichelp/v2r2/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.ims10.doc.rpg/r1hhrdr.htm This one shows exactly what I wrote: z/900, z/990 with slash and z9 without. Unfortunately, the book you linked to is incorre

Re: Specifics on the new Z196

2010-07-30 Thread Phil Smith
I'd consider an announcement much more official than a random web page about a performance report. The former goes through legal and marketing; the latter doesn't necessarily. Put it this way: this is internal IBM arcana, and as such doesn't really matter to the unwashed. But it matters to IBM

Re: Specifics on the new Z196

2010-07-30 Thread John Eells
R.S. wrote: Another link with slashes: http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/dzichelp/v2r2/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.ims10.doc.rpg/r1hhrdr.htm This one shows exactly what I wrote: z/900, z/990 with slash and z9 without. Unfortunately, the book you linked to is incorrect. For example, the

Re: Specifics on the new Z196

2010-07-30 Thread Bill Fairchild
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Walt Farrell Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 9:05 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Specifics on the new Z196 >Looks like that IMS book is incorrect, Radoslaw. I'd go with the

Re: Specifics on the new Z196

2010-07-30 Thread Walt Farrell
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:38:56 +0200, R.S. wrote: >Phil Smith pisze: >> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Mark Pace wrote: >>> I'm confused. You say there is no z/900 and then you include a link to a >>> z900. Is your problem with the z/900 vs z900? >> >> Right. Read the thread: the discussion (a

Re: Specifics on the new Z196

2010-07-30 Thread R.S.
Phil Smith pisze: On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Mark Pace wrote: I'm confused. You say there is no z/900 and then you include a link to a z900. Is your problem with the z/900 vs z900? Right. Read the thread: the discussion (and we're well into the weeds here, albeit at least on-topic fo

Re: Specifics on the new Z196

2010-07-30 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
In <4c52bca7.5060...@bremultibank.com.pl>, on 07/30/2010 at 01:51 PM, "R.S." said: >Wrong. You. >z/900 There is no slash. >The names are not easy to remember. Then don't trust your memory, which is faulty. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see

Re: Specifics on the new Z196

2010-07-30 Thread R.S.
Phil Smith pisze: R.S. wrote: Wrong. S/390, z/900, z/990 and then z9, z10, z196. Uh, no. There was no z/900. http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_PR900.html Uh, yes. http://www.vm.ibm.com/perf/reports/zvm/html/iqdio.html (just googled, much more OFFICIAL IBM docume

Re: Specifics on the new Z196

2010-07-30 Thread Phil Smith
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Mark Pace wrote: >I'm confused. You say there is no z/900 and then you include a link to a >z900. Is your problem with the z/900 vs z900? Right. Read the thread: the discussion (and we're well into the weeds here, albeit at least on-topic for the list, at least

Re: Specifics on the new Z196

2010-07-30 Thread Mark Pace
I'm confused. You say there is no z/900 and then you include a link to a z900. Is your problem with the z/900 vs z900? On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Phil Smith wrote: > R.S. wrote: > >Wrong. > >S/390, z/900, z/990 and then z9, z10, z196. > > Uh, no. There was no z/900. > http://www-03.ibm.c

Re: Specifics on the new Z196

2010-07-30 Thread Phil Smith
R.S. wrote: >Wrong. >S/390, z/900, z/990 and then z9, z10, z196. Uh, no. There was no z/900. http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_PR900.html -- ...phsiii -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive a

Re: Specifics on the new Z196

2010-07-30 Thread R.S.
Phil Smith pisze: Ed Gould wrote: http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/07/19/z196_mainframe_blade_interconnect/ And, yes that's zEnterprise 196 - without the characteristic slash used in IBM mainframe names since a lot of us were babies and before some of you were born. This is snide and

Re: Specifics on the new Z196

2010-07-29 Thread Phil Smith
Ed Gould wrote: >http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/07/19/z196_mainframe_blade_interconnect/ >And, yes that's zEnterprise 196 - without the characteristic slash used in IBM >mainframe names since a lot of us were babies and before some of you were born. This is snide and ignorant gibberish --

Specifics on the new Z196

2010-07-29 Thread Ed Gould
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/07/19/z196_mainframe_blade_interconnect/ As El Reg already reported, the System z11 machine will sport 96 cores and give about 80 of them over to running either z/OS or Linux in a single system image (rated at around 50,000 aggregate MIPS by our math) or allo