On December 12, Eric Smith wrote:
> The TCO of a mainframe is going to be less than that of 6000 PCs.  It's
> also going to do less work than 6000 PCs.  Replacing 6000 high-end PC-based
> servers that are all processing heavy workloads is going to take quite
> a few mainframes, probably over 60 (and I'm trying to give the mainframes
> the benefit of the doubt here).
> 
> I'm not saying that there aren't valid applications for mainframes, or that
> they aren't cost effective.  But replacing Google's server farm may not
> be one of them.

  Should I even bother to remind everyone what "PC" stands for?

   -Dave

-- 
Dave McGuire
St. Petersburg, FL