| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 3681.1 | Give them lots of money and they will speak | NEWVAX::MZARUDZKI | I AXPed it, and it is thinking... | Wed Feb 08 1995 07:22 | 9 |
|
duh... again...
The second sentence of your note, gives you the answer.
"PC/Week". Now if it were mini-week, or computer-week, or
processor-week... get the drift?
-Mike Z.
|
| 3681.2 | | OFOSS1::GINGER | Ron Ginger | Wed Feb 08 1995 09:11 | 10 |
| In the 'real' world of customers some terms have meanings that dont
agree with our 10 or 15 year old view of the world.
A 'server' is a file server to PCs, usually running NetWare.
'Notes' means Lotus notes, with a GUI and lots of nice structures, not a
15 year old text only system.
'E-MAil' usully means CC:Mail of Microsoft mail, again, GUI, based on
file servers, and distributed PCs, not character cell All in 1 menus.
|
| 3681.3 | | OSL09::OLAV | Do it in parallel! | Wed Feb 08 1995 09:48 | 8 |
| I guess most of the top 10 slots are filled with various Intel based SMP
servers, right? RISC doesn't have that great market share, yet.
> A 'server' is a file server to PCs, usually running NetWare.
With Windows NT Server growing fast! NetWare doesn't support SMP yet?
Olav
|
| 3681.4 | :-( | KETJE::SYBERTZ | [email protected] - DTN 856-7572 | Mon Feb 13 1995 06:16 | 3 |
| >With Windows NT Server growing fast!
Nice to hear this ...
|
| 3681.5 | Selling SMP vs SMP capable | CHEFS::SURPLICEK | | Mon Feb 13 1995 07:07 | 15 |
| How do we encourage sales of SMP?
Today we have a very capable line-up in the AlphServer 1000, 2000 and
2100 systems, plus the VAX and DEC 7000 but our SMP penetration is not
not exactly high [I don't feel like giving the precise number here].
i.e. we sell the systems but not so many have 2/3/4 processors.
Historically we have a history of making SMP expensive from both a
hardware and software perspective but today SMP is very affordable.
Is SMP purchased just for security of growth or is there a way we can
make it commonplace, and become more profitable? Of course the
customer will only purchase according to his or her needs but I sense a
reluctance even to make 2 CPUs the norm.
|
| 3681.6 | It is not horsepower, it's the gas... | POBOX::CORSON | Higher, and a bit more to the right | Mon Feb 13 1995 11:08 | 14 |
|
re: .5
Speaking for several of our resellers, the problem isn't mutiple
CPUs or not - the problem is *enhancing* executable performance that
is apparent to the end-user.
Since most of our current VARs sell solutions that are time-sharing
in nature, additional CPUs add little to user performance while having
a dramatic increase in cost (both acquisition and operating life).
It's not a question of SMP per se, it's a question of applications
usage by the end-user.
I'll keep asking, and let you know.
the Greyhawk
|
| 3681.7 | | BAHTAT::DODD | | Wed Feb 15 1995 04:03 | 17 |
| re.5
Ken,
I don't think .0 refers to SMP machines like VAX and Alpha. I thought
we did pretty well with SMP on 6000 etc. Why don't we do well in Intel
SMP? We haven't had one since the applicationDEC 433mp. This was a good
machine for its day, we encouraged SME VARs to go for it then never
enhanced it nor produced a follow on. Many VARs still remember that.
I would assume that the stats in .0 count SMP capable rather than SMP
equipped. SMP is touted by companies with slow processors, most
recently SUN. They get their customers into the mindset that says SMP
is the way to go. Digital has been getting its customers into the
mindset that fast processors are better. It hardly surprises me that
some do not choose to go SMP.
Andrew
|
| 3681.8 | Regarding .2 | IOSG::HOLTD | Dave Holt | Thu Feb 16 1995 08:29 | 5 |
| Have you tried TeamLinks with ALL-IN-1 from Windows or a Mac? Better
functionality than either MS Mail or cc:Mail, $49 for the client software, no
extra charge for ALL-IN-1 support and with easier/cheaper to manage server.
Dave Holt
|