Re: OpenVMS.org: Marvel article and HP's press release for Marveland Alpha Retain Trust Alpha Retain Trust Alpha Retain Trust

From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy (Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com)
Date: 04/16/03 

From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:21:24 +0100

jlsue wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 17:50:15 +0100, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
> <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>jlsue wrote:
>
>
>>>Bullshit it doesn't. I don't care *how many* times you tell me. It
>>>says specifically, in an EXACT QUOTE, that the vms upgrade gave the
>>>28% performance increase. I have provided proof, within the article,
>>>to support my claim. Your position is only one of conjecture based on
>>>your own self-serving opinions.
>>>
>>>You can keep repeating your lies, but you can't support it with actual
>>>data/info/quotes from the article.
>>>
>>
>>So tell us what was the impact of moving from Turbolaser to GS160 !
>
>
> I don't have to find or present that information because it is not
> germane to my side of this discussion: They are happy customers.
> The 28% improvement from the VMS upgrade is just a side issue that you
> bring out because you can't counter it with anything meaningful.
>

Huu are you really this challenged.

I asked you for references showing what performance improvements
people got when moving from 8400/GS140 to GS160/320.

So what are you now claiming again ?????? You are claiming that
the reference is for how much faster their GS system went
when they upgraded to 7.3.

Fine, lets for the sake of totally ruining your day assume
that you are correct and that is what the reference refers to.

I say ruining because if you are correct then this isn't
a reference for how much their 8400->GS upgrade boosted
their throughput. But thats what you origionally claimed
to have provided with the Bank Austia reference.

So you are now claiming that the reference you provided
isn't a reference at all, fine.

Do you get it yet. This is a rock and a hard place with
you in the middle.

So what was the performance improvement from moving
to the GS ?

> You give it a rest. There is nothing in my argument that depends on
> these numbers, so it's not necessary for me to show them. There are
> some possible answers to your inquiry, including these two for
> example:
>
> 1. The GS160 upgrade gave them zero improvement, but after upgrading
> to VMS 7.3 they got 28% improvement.
>
> OR
>
> 2. The GS160 upgrade gave them great performance improvement, but the
> VMS upgrade gave them an additional 28%.
>
> Both of us are only guessing which it may be, but the difference is
> that my argument doesn't depend on either outcome.
>
> In any case, they are HAPPY. Do you have anything to counter that?
>

No I don't need to bother, you either clarify which of the two scenarios
you refer to and then quantify them or the reference you supplied is
useless.

>>And you have the idiocity to claim that there are no
>>performance problems, without yourself being able to
>>provide on concrete example that stands scrutiny to
>>support your conjecture.
>
>
> You would have a point if you didn't lie about my claims. I claim
> that, in the real world, the benchmarks don't tell the whole story,
> and that there are happy customers. But YOU claim that there can not
> be ANY happy customers based on generic information. I did NOT claim
> that there are no performance problems. And I gave TWO "concrete
> examples" to support my claim. And you have nothing to counter them
> except bland, experimental, generic benchmarks.
>
Bullshit, I have never claimed that there are no happy
GS customers and I defy you to prove that I have.

Why not spend a little more time thinking through your
response and a little less time attempting to put words in my
mouth, you will benefit.

> The thing is, my position is much easier to prove, and your is easier
> to disprove. I only have to find ONE counter argument to support my
> logical argument and disprove yours. That's why your claim is so
> hopeless.
>

Well except that you have totally failed to prove it so
far, suggesting that its a bit more difficult than
it seems.

> Why do you spend so much time on this? You haven't provided anything
> to prove that my real claim is wrong. If you have something that
> shows these two articles are no longer valid - e.g., the customers
> have switched to something else because they were unhappy with the
> GS160 - then show it. If not, then you have nothing to counter with.
>

Well except for your own customers sending dissapointed messages
to this group.

Regards
Andrew Harrison

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OpenVMS.org: Marvel article and HPs press release for Marveland Alpha Retain Trust Alpha Retain
    ... >> The 28% improvement from the VMS upgrade is just a side issue that you ... In an effort to show that there are happy customers that I could talk ... >that you are correct and that is what the reference refers to. ... >> except bland, experimental, generic benchmarks. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Function name not found
    ... are casual canned-software-only customers? ... I have an app that has just ... certain Reference changes from version to version in MDBs, ... Looking at you Startup function, the first thing I see is a DFirst ...
    (microsoft.public.access.modulesdaovba)
  • LINQ Classes in Separate Files
    ... /// Get the text description of the reference item for the ID ... var qry = from tbl in this.BillingTypeReferences ... public short GetId(string pDescription) ... LINQ class called Customers: ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: Citibank Spyware Tracking Your Online Banking now Mandatory
    ... > Citibank has started forcing customers to allow 3rd parties to track ... I have no new cookies, no new OCX, no new java applets, no new nothing on ... banking facilities nor electronic payments as you stated would be the ... given the generic reference to what they "require" and a more ...
    (comp.security.misc)