On September 27, you wrote:
> 1) Faster IO
> 2) Faster context switching
> 3) Faster processors

  Again, flame-bait ignored.

> Thats silly. If a 10 won't handle it, then a 4/400 series machine with
> far fewer contexts, a slower bus, slower processors and the like is
> certainly not going to handle it.

  Well, they do.  Wonderfully.  You sure seem to know more about
machine architecture than I do, so why don't you tell me why it works?

> > We have a major competitor that tried it (two, actually) and it bit
> > them on the butt.
> Probably bad engineering, not bad machines.

  I didn't say they were "bad machines"...I *love* 'em myself, I just
have this thing about using them for what they were designed to do.
Do you know the difference between a car and a truck, man?

  However, it *is* entirely possible that it was bad engineering.  My
company's competitors don't often invite me into their machine
rooms.. :)

> So what is the explanation you can give for why the old stuff is
> better for you?

  Again...You tell me.  It works.  Very well.  Much better than the
efforts of competitors trying to shoehorn it into desktop
workstations.  YOU TELL ME, man!  I'm open to your explanation!  If I
can go to my boss and tell him I have a solution that will shrink our
machine room down by a factor of ten, then I think I have a win and I
will buy you dinner.


                            -Dave McGuire
                             Operations
                             Digital Express Group, Incorporated
                             mcguire@digex.net