| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 494.1 | is that a problem? | TROOA::MSCHNEIDER | martin.schneider@tro.mts.dec.com | Sat Feb 15 1997 13:12 | 12 |
| No 128 MB does not cost more than 512MB of memory, BUT a packaged
system with 128MB costs more than a packaged system with 512MB.
The Jan 8 repricing affected only selected systems ... specifically
those with larger memory configs dropped significantly.
Our Canadian price file shows the same thing... cheaper to buy a 512 MB
model. Not that you CANNOT buy a 128MB 4100 5/466.
Message is that 128MB config is not the choice to make.
|
| 494.2 | nope | CXXC::REINIG | This too shall change | Mon Feb 17 1997 13:00 | 4 |
| It's not a problem for me. I thought there might be an error in the
pricing information. Apparantly not.
August
|
| 494.3 | here a gig, there a gig | JULIET::HATTRUP_JA | Jim Hattrup, Santa Clara, CA | Wed Feb 19 1997 00:35 | 10 |
| I belive the 128MB system is also being 'retired', as in not actively
managed - and probably not in the 'latest' Systems and Options Catalog,
etc.
The above combination, plus the previously mentioned repricing (512MB
systems and module reduction (I think the 128MB options were reduced
also - just not 'old' systems using them, in this case the system
wasn't really old, but...)) resulted in the strange pricing.
This happens with a lot of our 'packaged configs' over time.
|
| 494.4 | Fastest load in the saddle | PERFOM::HENNING | | Thu Feb 20 1997 08:21 | 4 |
| The 128mb modules are a bit faster than the 512mb modules - around 10%.
SPEC tests use them.
Rawhide, please don't round up them fast critters and "retire" them.
|