Don't forget that IBM/Motorola builds the PowerPC for IBM's AIX boxes, and AIX is alive and kicking. I saw a statistic a couple years ago - IBM is still the country's largest distributor of PC's. Sorry - no reference. George Kevin Brown wrote: > > TI is going to be producing the Sparc Ultra III for Sun. Alpha is Dead or > dying. AMD is about to (or has) release the Sledgehammer, their competitor for > the 64-bit world. Wouldn't surprise me if Motorola got out of the Desktop > world, but probably not while Apple is selling the systems. It's gonna be fun > to watch AMD and Intel going head-to-head in the 64-bit world. As long as AMD > stays in the market, Intel has nothing to fear from Big Bad Uncle Sam coming > after it for being a Monopoly, but of course Intel hasn't done the things that > Microsoft did to get their monopoly (or am I wrong?). > > > I'm not certain the "only runs on Intel" is much of a distinction. As far as > > I know Itanium will be the only chip in its league. > > > > Cost of development and building a fab is getting just to high for there to > > be more than one producer. IBM, HP, and Compaq are getting out of the CPU > > biz. Motorolla probably will too. Don't know about SUN. > > > > As for having to upgrade every three years, aren't you the one who says the > > cost of hardware and the OS is "irrelevant"? > > > > ((( > > > > I used to accept that at face value, but now I wonder about opportunity cost. > > If MIS saves 20% on hard and soft plant then it can buy 20% more new toys > > [or the firm can re-invest the money elsewhere] *every* year. The > > compounding effect will add up. > > > > Also, I encounter a lot of entrepreneurs and smaller businesses that are very > > sensitive to initial costs. A 20% cost difference can be the difference > > between having a thingamajig and having no thingamajig at all. (For some > > [many] business models no thingamajig means no business.) > > > > ))) > > > > On Monday 04 March 2002 23:02, you wrote: > > > Excellent points!!! Especially about the constant upgrade path. > > > > > > Consider this: > > > 1. Assume Java is backward compatible. I think it mostly is, > > > and the parts that are not, the compiler warns you about using > > > a depricated api. > > > 2. Java 1,0 programs still work in a 1.2 JVM, right? > > > 3. Sun supports their OS's for 5 years after they are declared > > > at end of life. This announcement was made for Solaris 2.6 > > > about a year ago. Microsoft hasn't supported any product version > > > for five years yet. > > > > > > > > > With these considerations, figure out the total cost of ownership > > > for the project, from birth to death. Use Microsoft's track > > > record. You know they will force you to upgrade OS at least > > > every 3 years. Also consider the price of hardware. Sun boxes > > > and AIX boxes are more expensive than Intel-based Compaqs or IBMs. > > > > > > Have fun! > > > > > > George > > > > > > Sundar Narayanasamy wrote: > > > > Joseph, > > > > > > > > This is what I infer by reading .NET, though I might be biased as I have > > > > successfully worked/implemented quite a few J2EE projects. > > > > > > > > 1. .NET is not just a framework on how to develop your > > > > application, you have to buy middle layer support that would enable you > > > > to run .NET apps. Of course these middle layer products are released by > > > > M$ and you pay a hefty price for that. > > > > Even J2EE needs J2EE complaint servers to support > > > > their framework, but you can get better than commercial grade free > > > > software like JBoss, Enhydra totally free. > > > > > > > > 2. Even when you buy M$ software, lot of times you have > > > > to train your employees and/or pay lot of money for support contract > > > > with M$.( I am implementing MS SMS for our company and had few questions > > > > about certain things, but when I asked the questions in their News > > > > Group, one of the M$ representative politely asked me take advantage of > > > > their current specials on training sessions-- i.e $3000 for one day > > > > session in Las Vegas) > > > > > > > > 3. .NET implements M$ way of developing applications > > > > that are tightly integrated to one another(though they claim otherwise). > > > > It is not based on MVC model, which any object oriented programmer would > > > > swear by. > > > > > > > > 4. I haven't yet read field case studies on successful > > > > enterprise level .NET implementations outside Microsoft; whereas J2EE > > > > has many to go by. > > > > > > > > 5. And since M$ always ties their software releases with > > > > Operating System and Servers, you have to upgrade your hardware/software > > > > regularly to get continuous support from M$ and their vendors. My > > > > philosophy is - if it works why fix it. ( We have some old Venix > > > > systems, which we still use actively; they work!) > > > > > > > > etc.. > > > > > > > > Sundar > > > > > > > > Joseph Gledhill wrote: > > > > >I need some legitimate reasons not to go with .NET as a development > > > > >platform. Any comments would be appreciated. > > > > > > > > > >thanks, > > > > > > > > > >Joseph > ________________________________________________ > See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail. > > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss