[NTLUG:Discuss] Re: VM Ware -- memory questions (and Dell)

[Bryan J. Smith]

On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 10:02, jpmiller at quorumhost.com wrote:
> In following this thread, I wonder where the dell recommendation for memory
> comes from?  my experience with dell's site is that most of their
> 'recommendations' are based on 'Marketing & Margins', not on sound technical
> information.

Well, in defense of Dell, like many tier-1 vendors, they do have formal
certification and QA procedures.  Because the i915/925 and DDR2
platforms are new, they probably regression tested what they would
consider the most stable first:  "slower" non-registered/ECC
(consumer/desktop) and "fatest" registered/ECC (commercial/server).

But I _do_ dislike how they say it's "not supported" as if it's
universally that way.  I would much rather them say "we do not support
that configuration yet" but I'm sure they don't because it introduces
negative marketing.  And they can't say "it should, but we haven't
tested it" because that could open up liability, etc...

What I had a problem with in 1999-2000 was what most semiconductor firms
did.  Dell "took their time" certifying Linux for anything but the
_lowest_ amount of memory and _slowest_ CPU.  Being that the entire Dell
offering was directed by Intel, with a guarantee of demand for 100,000
high-end, engineering workstations, this was ludicrious.  Everyone
called, from my company (Theseus Logic) to all our partners and even
competitors, and we got the same run-around -- "Linux only supports
128MB of RAM and a 300MHz processor."

Then our Sunnyvale office was _stupid_ and just ordered the Windows
version of the box.  It came with endless Windows-only hardware -- the
_same_ model.  That was a mess.

> (not that I blame them for this, everyone does it; it's just important to
> understand that their only real interest is making money by selling you a
> computer. marketing increases sales, margins increase the profitability of
> sales.)

Yes, and that also means certification/QA.

What I had a problem with 5 years ago was that after 6 months, they
still didn't have anything certified other than the "lowest
memory"/"slowest processor" configuration.  Apparently they didn't want
to make money.  Or it was going to "cost" them more if they did.

They had Intel's funding to take care of the certification/QA costs. 
But there was another influence.  In a nutshell, various technicians
fully admitted to me that there were told specifically not to certify
Linux systems.  I didn't believe it myself but then I got a hold of IT
support at Intel, Synopsys, Transmeta and many other industry partners.

When Dell stopped shipping because of "lack of sales" or "lack of demand
for the units" (but not "lack of demand in general" ;-), Microsoft went
nuts and ran with it.  Most of the IT media bought into it, but a few IT
columnists were key in noting the fact that _no_ engineer wanted the
configuration Dell was offering.  And Intel's presence at SVLUG in 1999
which drove them to this whole endeavor and promise of sales because of
the _real_need_ by companies like mine.

[ Remember, Dell is probably the only PC OEM funded more by Intel than
Microsoft, hence why it was their best choice.  It's also AMD option is
very doubtful for Dell, despite neverending rumors. ]

But that just drove engineers to HP.  Sure, HP didn't get the same level
of interest generated like the Dell deal, and I'm sure sales were far
less.  Most people, including my company, just found a "Linux
compatible" OEM like Micron -- we dropped Dell for the Linux issue,
among many others like lack of accountability (over 50% of systems were
shipped with incorrect configurations, and then it was hell to get them
returned/replaced) and on shipment/replacement (literally had 24 hour
cross-ship agreements that were _worthless_).  But it's one of the
reasons why HP has such a _long_ history of any tier-1 OEM with Linux on
the desktop.  Not even IBM matches, which didn't make their withdrawls
in support of Thinkpads and select systems over the past 12-18 months
very surprising.

I always said IBM will be serious about Linux on the desktop when you
see them port some of their desktop applications outside of development
or vertical applications..

-- 
Bryan J. Smith                                 b.j.smith at ieee.org 
------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Beware of advocates who justify their preference not in terms of
what they like about their "choice," but what they did not like
about another option.  Such advocacy is more hurtful than helpful.