Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect

On Aug 30, 8:05 am, "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.M...@xxxxxx> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spam...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: August 29, 2007 9:35 PM
To: Info-...@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect

Main, Kerry wrote:
All,

The following article may be of interest: (August 28, 2007)
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT082807020032&p=1

Mr Main,

What will differentiate a 64 bit 8086 plugged into a CSI interface from
a 64 bit IA64 also plugged into a CSI interface ?

If both have access to the same type of memory, cache etc, then won't
the industry standard architecture that has competition from AMD end up
being far superior than some proprietary IA64 thing that requires its
own proprietary funky compilers due to ist EPIC nature ?

JF -

Remember the relative importance to Cust's in terms of both what they have and what they
need In the future:

1. App = 50-60%
2. OS = 25-35%
3. Server HW - 10-15%

I really didn't want to get into this again, but let's talk about
those numbers. You say "relative importance to Cust's" of the App is
50-60% ?? I say relative importance of the App is 100% and the OS &
hardware (and I include workstations, printers and all other
peripherals and infrastructure) fall into the category of "necessary
evils." Your numbers more closely reflect the rough cost of acquiring
the ability to perform the application.

Platform security, support, reliability, performance and all other OS/
hardware factors effect cost and are certainly important but they are
subordinate to and dependent upon the needs of the application.

You don't buy an application you can't run, and you don't buy a
platform that won't run your application. Before anyone else says it,
I'll say it first: "Duh!"



While #3 gets all sorts of attention in techie newsgroups, in the pig picture,
#1 and #2 are much more important to Cust's. With a massive glut in available compute
cycles in most Cust's environment today, Cust's are not impressed with fantastic new
computer speeds that will increase their glut of available compute cycles even more.

Btw, this applies to all platforms.

Also, keep in mind that there is now a massive trend to consolidating both servers and
DC's. This is a huge change from the distributed computing designs of the last 10 years.

Imho, the question that will become increasingly important in the future - "Can a company
afford OS platforms for their future centralized, very HA strategy that have "one app,
one OS" App/ISV support cultures...

Well, unless you're considering something like ERP or an office
productivity suite a single app, then I guess I'd disagree.

Server consolidation is happening and will continue to happen, but if
OpenVMS doesn't run the applications that are being consolidated, why
would OpenVMS even be a consideration?

The "one app, one OS" scene hasn't played in years. Nobody I can think
of today does that other than on existing older equipment that *will*
be consolidated as equipment is replaced (or for very specialized
applications on special purpose servers that *should* be kept
isolated.)

and where the OS vendors release 5-20 security patches
per month?"


You really should stop using that argument, too. It's been rebutted in
many previous threads.

Windows and *nix are so much better today vs. the past, in every
aspect, that anyone paying even a little attention can predict that
they will only get better.

My advice to Cust's - think like Wayne Gretzky (ok, he's a hockey player) and the way
He became a great player .. "Do not skate to where the puck is, but where it will be in
the next play sequence .."

:-)

The puck looks to me like it's still heading towards x86. The article
you reference supports this argument better than most I've read.
Thanks.

----------
And a semi-non-related news item just in:
+
"Nigeria overtakes Ireland as Guinness' second-largest market."
+
If anyone needed proof that the world is getting weirder, there it
is!


.