<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_03_2234210</id>
	<title>Cisco Introduces Rackmount Servers</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1244038860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.gamehostingguide.com/" rel="nofollow">1sockchuck</a> writes <i>"After shaking up the market for blade servers, Cisco Systems is launching a line of <a href="http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/06/03/cisco-unveils-rackmount-servers-for-ucs/">rackmount servers</a>. But the company says its ambitions are more targeted than a full-scale 'all your racks are belong to us' assault on the volume server market. Cisco says it sees its 1U and 2U C-Series rackmount servers as offering an entry point to its Unified Computing System vision for companies who've built their data centers using rackmount servers instead of blades. But it thinks many customers will like the expanded memory capacity Cisco has built into the Xeon 5500/Nehalem EP processor."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>1sockchuck writes " After shaking up the market for blade servers , Cisco Systems is launching a line of rackmount servers .
But the company says its ambitions are more targeted than a full-scale 'all your racks are belong to us ' assault on the volume server market .
Cisco says it sees its 1U and 2U C-Series rackmount servers as offering an entry point to its Unified Computing System vision for companies who 've built their data centers using rackmount servers instead of blades .
But it thinks many customers will like the expanded memory capacity Cisco has built into the Xeon 5500/Nehalem EP processor .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1sockchuck writes "After shaking up the market for blade servers, Cisco Systems is launching a line of rackmount servers.
But the company says its ambitions are more targeted than a full-scale 'all your racks are belong to us' assault on the volume server market.
Cisco says it sees its 1U and 2U C-Series rackmount servers as offering an entry point to its Unified Computing System vision for companies who've built their data centers using rackmount servers instead of blades.
But it thinks many customers will like the expanded memory capacity Cisco has built into the Xeon 5500/Nehalem EP processor.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205921</id>
	<title>Xeon 55000?</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1244052780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that the 40 core version of Xeon 5500?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that the 40 core version of Xeon 5500 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that the 40 core version of Xeon 5500?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207107</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cisco</title>
	<author>bertok</author>
	<datestamp>1244113380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a term for it:</p><p><i>Reassuringly expensive</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a term for it : Reassuringly expensive</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a term for it:Reassuringly expensive</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205701</id>
	<title>Makes a lot of sense to me</title>
	<author>Bluecobra</author>
	<datestamp>1244050020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is a great thing for Cisco.  Okay, so nobody will buy their servers for regular stuff.  But they will buy Call Manager servers and the like.  At work we have 3 Cisco servers that are re-branded IBM boxes.  One is for our Unity voicemail system and the other two are for Callmanager.  When there are hardware issues, I need to call Cisco who then calls IBM to fix it.  I think from a support perspective, it would be a huge benefit to actually MAKE the servers you are supporting that way support requests get processed more efficiently.  Cisco doesn't just have IBM servers either, they have HP as well so that would be two vendors that they don't need to deal with anymore for support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is a great thing for Cisco .
Okay , so nobody will buy their servers for regular stuff .
But they will buy Call Manager servers and the like .
At work we have 3 Cisco servers that are re-branded IBM boxes .
One is for our Unity voicemail system and the other two are for Callmanager .
When there are hardware issues , I need to call Cisco who then calls IBM to fix it .
I think from a support perspective , it would be a huge benefit to actually MAKE the servers you are supporting that way support requests get processed more efficiently .
Cisco does n't just have IBM servers either , they have HP as well so that would be two vendors that they do n't need to deal with anymore for support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is a great thing for Cisco.
Okay, so nobody will buy their servers for regular stuff.
But they will buy Call Manager servers and the like.
At work we have 3 Cisco servers that are re-branded IBM boxes.
One is for our Unity voicemail system and the other two are for Callmanager.
When there are hardware issues, I need to call Cisco who then calls IBM to fix it.
I think from a support perspective, it would be a huge benefit to actually MAKE the servers you are supporting that way support requests get processed more efficiently.
Cisco doesn't just have IBM servers either, they have HP as well so that would be two vendors that they don't need to deal with anymore for support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205899</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cisco</title>
	<author>ani23</author>
	<datestamp>1244052600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>VMWare makes servers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>VMWare makes servers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VMWare makes servers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205313</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cisco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244045400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You're a day late and a dollar short.</i></p><p>You underestimate the power of collusion between Cisco and Gartner.  My employer recently spent OODLES above and beyond that of a more reliable and featureful PBX in order to adhere to Gartner's "single source" recommendation.  It doesn't matter if it costs more - it *has to be better* if it allows you to consolidate suppliers.</p><p>It really hurts me to go in to work every day knowing that I work for idiots.  Instead of a 1U PBX server that just sat there untouched for TWO YEARS, now we have 20U (6 unique boxes total) that need all sorts of poking and prodding.</p><p>Cisco knows that they can just buy some high-end hookers for the people who make the big decisions, period.  They really don't care if the quality is there.  I'm there to hold the bag for them when the shit hits the fan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a day late and a dollar short.You underestimate the power of collusion between Cisco and Gartner .
My employer recently spent OODLES above and beyond that of a more reliable and featureful PBX in order to adhere to Gartner 's " single source " recommendation .
It does n't matter if it costs more - it * has to be better * if it allows you to consolidate suppliers.It really hurts me to go in to work every day knowing that I work for idiots .
Instead of a 1U PBX server that just sat there untouched for TWO YEARS , now we have 20U ( 6 unique boxes total ) that need all sorts of poking and prodding.Cisco knows that they can just buy some high-end hookers for the people who make the big decisions , period .
They really do n't care if the quality is there .
I 'm there to hold the bag for them when the shit hits the fan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a day late and a dollar short.You underestimate the power of collusion between Cisco and Gartner.
My employer recently spent OODLES above and beyond that of a more reliable and featureful PBX in order to adhere to Gartner's "single source" recommendation.
It doesn't matter if it costs more - it *has to be better* if it allows you to consolidate suppliers.It really hurts me to go in to work every day knowing that I work for idiots.
Instead of a 1U PBX server that just sat there untouched for TWO YEARS, now we have 20U (6 unique boxes total) that need all sorts of poking and prodding.Cisco knows that they can just buy some high-end hookers for the people who make the big decisions, period.
They really don't care if the quality is there.
I'm there to hold the bag for them when the shit hits the fan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28206897</id>
	<title>Re:These look cool - but not for RAM</title>
	<author>speculatrix</author>
	<datestamp>1244110260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't get their maths: <i>Cisco has boosted the memory capacity of the Xeon 5500, using a custom ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) to provide the processor with a four-fold increase in the number of memory modules it can access. This expands a UCS Xeon 5500 system from 144GB to 384GB, and also gives users the option of using more affordable memory configurations.</i>
<br>
144 x 4 != 384
<br>
<br>
For most people the practical limit on memory is simply the price of the higher capacity DDR3 dimms - 4GB ddr3 sticks are only just becoming affordable and 8G ddr3 sticks are hugely expensive!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get their maths : Cisco has boosted the memory capacity of the Xeon 5500 , using a custom ASIC ( Application Specific Integrated Circuit ) to provide the processor with a four-fold increase in the number of memory modules it can access .
This expands a UCS Xeon 5500 system from 144GB to 384GB , and also gives users the option of using more affordable memory configurations .
144 x 4 ! = 384 For most people the practical limit on memory is simply the price of the higher capacity DDR3 dimms - 4GB ddr3 sticks are only just becoming affordable and 8G ddr3 sticks are hugely expensive !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get their maths: Cisco has boosted the memory capacity of the Xeon 5500, using a custom ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) to provide the processor with a four-fold increase in the number of memory modules it can access.
This expands a UCS Xeon 5500 system from 144GB to 384GB, and also gives users the option of using more affordable memory configurations.
144 x 4 != 384


For most people the practical limit on memory is simply the price of the higher capacity DDR3 dimms - 4GB ddr3 sticks are only just becoming affordable and 8G ddr3 sticks are hugely expensive!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205977</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cisco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244053560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So long as they make a profit, it's a good move</i></p><p>It's only a good move if the profit made provides the highest NPV.  Or, for a simple example.  If a company spends $1m on a project that nets a dollar in a year, that's a bad move, because they could have put that $1m into government bonds and gotten at least 3\% ($30k).</p><p>So profit != good.  Maximum profit given available options = good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So long as they make a profit , it 's a good moveIt 's only a good move if the profit made provides the highest NPV .
Or , for a simple example .
If a company spends $ 1m on a project that nets a dollar in a year , that 's a bad move , because they could have put that $ 1m into government bonds and gotten at least 3 \ % ( $ 30k ) .So profit ! = good .
Maximum profit given available options = good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So long as they make a profit, it's a good moveIt's only a good move if the profit made provides the highest NPV.
Or, for a simple example.
If a company spends $1m on a project that nets a dollar in a year, that's a bad move, because they could have put that $1m into government bonds and gotten at least 3\% ($30k).So profit != good.
Maximum profit given available options = good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205851</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cisco</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1244051940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's worse than that, the only server on the list that is more expandable than the servers I can buy TODAY from any of the major players is the top line 2U one. Today I can buy a DL360 G6 (1U) from HP and stuff it with 18 DIMM's and 8 SFF HDD's, in fact I have 3 waiting in my datacenter that were delivered yesterday (though they are the 4x SFF variety with optical drive, they are going to be SAN connected so I only needed 2 drives for the OS). 48 DIMM's is a technical tour de force, but I wonder if they can pull it off at a competitive price to alternative solutions. I also wonder how many people will find that their real workloads work well with that many VM's for each core (unless they have really memory hungry VM's). Also Beckton comes out a quarter later so 1U servers from the competition could have 16 cores (32 with hyperthreading) and 32DIMM slots (though at the cost and power cost of FB-DIMM's).</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worse than that , the only server on the list that is more expandable than the servers I can buy TODAY from any of the major players is the top line 2U one .
Today I can buy a DL360 G6 ( 1U ) from HP and stuff it with 18 DIMM 's and 8 SFF HDD 's , in fact I have 3 waiting in my datacenter that were delivered yesterday ( though they are the 4x SFF variety with optical drive , they are going to be SAN connected so I only needed 2 drives for the OS ) .
48 DIMM 's is a technical tour de force , but I wonder if they can pull it off at a competitive price to alternative solutions .
I also wonder how many people will find that their real workloads work well with that many VM 's for each core ( unless they have really memory hungry VM 's ) .
Also Beckton comes out a quarter later so 1U servers from the competition could have 16 cores ( 32 with hyperthreading ) and 32DIMM slots ( though at the cost and power cost of FB-DIMM 's ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's worse than that, the only server on the list that is more expandable than the servers I can buy TODAY from any of the major players is the top line 2U one.
Today I can buy a DL360 G6 (1U) from HP and stuff it with 18 DIMM's and 8 SFF HDD's, in fact I have 3 waiting in my datacenter that were delivered yesterday (though they are the 4x SFF variety with optical drive, they are going to be SAN connected so I only needed 2 drives for the OS).
48 DIMM's is a technical tour de force, but I wonder if they can pull it off at a competitive price to alternative solutions.
I also wonder how many people will find that their real workloads work well with that many VM's for each core (unless they have really memory hungry VM's).
Also Beckton comes out a quarter later so 1U servers from the competition could have 16 cores (32 with hyperthreading) and 32DIMM slots (though at the cost and power cost of FB-DIMM's).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205055</id>
	<title>These look cool - but not for RAM</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1244043120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More RAM isn't a big deal - the 5500 series from everybody else goes up to 172GB now, and will be at least double that soon.  That's plenty for now.
</p><p>The density is only 1/4th that of HP's new <a href="http://h30423.www3.hp.com/?fr\_operatingMode=OneSpecificStory&amp;rf=sitemap&amp;fr\_story=e0cd20f591cace6f1b9301991d09c83ff56393e3&amp;jumpid=reg\_R1002\_USEN" title="hp.com">DL1000</a> [hp.com] (video).
</p><p>Interconnect is what gives these Cisco servers their shine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More RAM is n't a big deal - the 5500 series from everybody else goes up to 172GB now , and will be at least double that soon .
That 's plenty for now .
The density is only 1/4th that of HP 's new DL1000 [ hp.com ] ( video ) .
Interconnect is what gives these Cisco servers their shine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More RAM isn't a big deal - the 5500 series from everybody else goes up to 172GB now, and will be at least double that soon.
That's plenty for now.
The density is only 1/4th that of HP's new DL1000 [hp.com] (video).
Interconnect is what gives these Cisco servers their shine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207853</id>
	<title>Re:Take that, HP!</title>
	<author>GaryOlson</author>
	<datestamp>1244122020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cisco's been losing all this SmartNet gravy that they wallow in year after year.</p> </div><p>Because the person who knows how to use a spreadsheet has figured out SmartNet is a financially dumb move. Networking technology advancement is accelerating; but the SmartNet contract will only provide an equal replacement. For example: why spend the equivalent money to get replacement 10/100 equipment when a properly planned replacement scheme can upgrade your network to 1Gb for the same cost?<br> <br>HP is not the only network gear company taking market share from Cisco. Basic LAN networking gear <i>from the Other Guy</i> has routing by default for the same price or lower than Cisco layer 2 switches. If I play Bluff The Cisco Saleman long enough, they will eventually throw in Layer 3 for the same price. But I don't have time for monkey games.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cisco 's been losing all this SmartNet gravy that they wallow in year after year .
Because the person who knows how to use a spreadsheet has figured out SmartNet is a financially dumb move .
Networking technology advancement is accelerating ; but the SmartNet contract will only provide an equal replacement .
For example : why spend the equivalent money to get replacement 10/100 equipment when a properly planned replacement scheme can upgrade your network to 1Gb for the same cost ?
HP is not the only network gear company taking market share from Cisco .
Basic LAN networking gear from the Other Guy has routing by default for the same price or lower than Cisco layer 2 switches .
If I play Bluff The Cisco Saleman long enough , they will eventually throw in Layer 3 for the same price .
But I do n't have time for monkey games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cisco's been losing all this SmartNet gravy that they wallow in year after year.
Because the person who knows how to use a spreadsheet has figured out SmartNet is a financially dumb move.
Networking technology advancement is accelerating; but the SmartNet contract will only provide an equal replacement.
For example: why spend the equivalent money to get replacement 10/100 equipment when a properly planned replacement scheme can upgrade your network to 1Gb for the same cost?
HP is not the only network gear company taking market share from Cisco.
Basic LAN networking gear from the Other Guy has routing by default for the same price or lower than Cisco layer 2 switches.
If I play Bluff The Cisco Saleman long enough, they will eventually throw in Layer 3 for the same price.
But I don't have time for monkey games.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205299</id>
	<title>Dear editors</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1244045340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please keep this tripe off the front page.</p><p>Thanks</p><p>- Sane slashdotters everywhere (and a few insane ones too)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please keep this tripe off the front page.Thanks- Sane slashdotters everywhere ( and a few insane ones too )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please keep this tripe off the front page.Thanks- Sane slashdotters everywhere (and a few insane ones too)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205185</id>
	<title>Take that, HP!</title>
	<author>binaryspiral</author>
	<datestamp>1244044260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HP used to provide hardware for Cisco's appliances and servers that they resold as Cisco branded gear... Call Managers and the like.</p><p>Well, HP's been really pissing off Cisco by selling ProCurve switches with lifetime warranties and converting Cisco Catalyst switch users over to HP ProCurve customers. Cisco's been losing all this SmartNet gravy that they wallow in year after year. So this is their answer... sell servers to piss in HP's very large bowl of Cheerios.</p><p>Good luck Cisco, you're entering a cut throat market with well established hardware vendors in a global recession... You've either got a large pair of brass balls or you're just really really stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HP used to provide hardware for Cisco 's appliances and servers that they resold as Cisco branded gear... Call Managers and the like.Well , HP 's been really pissing off Cisco by selling ProCurve switches with lifetime warranties and converting Cisco Catalyst switch users over to HP ProCurve customers .
Cisco 's been losing all this SmartNet gravy that they wallow in year after year .
So this is their answer... sell servers to piss in HP 's very large bowl of Cheerios.Good luck Cisco , you 're entering a cut throat market with well established hardware vendors in a global recession... You 've either got a large pair of brass balls or you 're just really really stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HP used to provide hardware for Cisco's appliances and servers that they resold as Cisco branded gear... Call Managers and the like.Well, HP's been really pissing off Cisco by selling ProCurve switches with lifetime warranties and converting Cisco Catalyst switch users over to HP ProCurve customers.
Cisco's been losing all this SmartNet gravy that they wallow in year after year.
So this is their answer... sell servers to piss in HP's very large bowl of Cheerios.Good luck Cisco, you're entering a cut throat market with well established hardware vendors in a global recession... You've either got a large pair of brass balls or you're just really really stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205961</id>
	<title>Re:Take that, HP!</title>
	<author>spydabyte</author>
	<datestamp>1244053320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, not in servers. Routing and switching? sure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , not in servers .
Routing and switching ?
sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, not in servers.
Routing and switching?
sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207291</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cisco</title>
	<author>deviceb</author>
	<datestamp>1244116500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With Cisco building modules that can handle normal server tasks right on the gateway...  why not build your own servers.
I hope they do well, i respect Cisco... the other main players I only deal with because i have to.  HP, Dell...  phaa <br>
Can Cisco enter the market with some competitive pricing is the big question..</htmltext>
<tokenext>With Cisco building modules that can handle normal server tasks right on the gateway... why not build your own servers .
I hope they do well , i respect Cisco... the other main players I only deal with because i have to .
HP , Dell... phaa Can Cisco enter the market with some competitive pricing is the big question. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Cisco building modules that can handle normal server tasks right on the gateway...  why not build your own servers.
I hope they do well, i respect Cisco... the other main players I only deal with because i have to.
HP, Dell...  phaa 
Can Cisco enter the market with some competitive pricing is the big question..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205311</id>
	<title>Re:Take that, HP!</title>
	<author>teh\_c0unt</author>
	<datestamp>1244045400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Good luck Cisco, you're entering a cut throat market with well established hardware vendors in a global recession... You've either got a large pair of brass balls or you're just really really stupid.</p></div><p>is cisco not a well established hardware vendor? <a href="http://www.thestreet.com/story/10508379/1/tech-rumor-of-the-day-juniper-cisco.html" title="thestreet.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.thestreet.com/story/10508379/1/tech-rumor-of-the-day-juniper-cisco.html</a> [thestreet.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck Cisco , you 're entering a cut throat market with well established hardware vendors in a global recession... You 've either got a large pair of brass balls or you 're just really really stupid.is cisco not a well established hardware vendor ?
http : //www.thestreet.com/story/10508379/1/tech-rumor-of-the-day-juniper-cisco.html [ thestreet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck Cisco, you're entering a cut throat market with well established hardware vendors in a global recession... You've either got a large pair of brass balls or you're just really really stupid.is cisco not a well established hardware vendor?
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10508379/1/tech-rumor-of-the-day-juniper-cisco.html [thestreet.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28206895</id>
	<title>Re:These look cool - but not for RAM</title>
	<author>Euzechius</author>
	<datestamp>1244110200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for Cisco, so this post is biased.</p><p>If you want to know more about <a href="http://www.zdnetasia.com/videos/whiteboard/0,3800010902,62052319,00.htm" title="zdnetasia.com" rel="nofollow">Intel Nehalem 55xx architecture</a> [zdnetasia.com].</p><p>It explains that a the server manufacturer using the Intel Nehalem 55xx processor can support up to 3, 6 or 9 DIMMs/socket. This corresponds with a memory bus speed of 1333, 1066 or 800Mhz. The latter is not often implemented and would give you (9x2x8GB) 144GB in a dual socket system.</p><p>What Cisco did is, developing a patented "memory switch" which presents up to 4 DIMMs as 1 to the processor, MULTIPLYING THE ALLOWED RAM TIMES FOUR. If the memory is running at 1066Mhz this gives you 48DIMMs. If the memory is running at 800Mhz this would allow up to 72 DIMMs in one server. The latter one has not been implemented.</p><p>Where would you ever need this kind of memory?</p><p>* Running VMware ESX, XenServer,... and assuming 3-4GB per VM -&gt; imagine 96 VMs per physical box<br>* imagine running a 300GB MySQL database out of RAM without the need of a high end machine</p><p>Also the price per GB is not linear for memory. 8GB costs currently way more than 4x 2GB. So if you still don't need the 384GB memory, you can fill the 48DIMMs with 2GB and have a 96GB RAM server for a lower price.</p><p>There are also a lot of other features which are really different and better than the competition, such as centralized management per 320 servers. In more enterprise environments customers can also consolidate their SAN and their LAN network by using open standard FCoE.</p><p>Please check it out at Cisco - <a href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns944/#~product" title="cisco.com" rel="nofollow">Unified Computing System</a> [cisco.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for Cisco , so this post is biased.If you want to know more about Intel Nehalem 55xx architecture [ zdnetasia.com ] .It explains that a the server manufacturer using the Intel Nehalem 55xx processor can support up to 3 , 6 or 9 DIMMs/socket .
This corresponds with a memory bus speed of 1333 , 1066 or 800Mhz .
The latter is not often implemented and would give you ( 9x2x8GB ) 144GB in a dual socket system.What Cisco did is , developing a patented " memory switch " which presents up to 4 DIMMs as 1 to the processor , MULTIPLYING THE ALLOWED RAM TIMES FOUR .
If the memory is running at 1066Mhz this gives you 48DIMMs .
If the memory is running at 800Mhz this would allow up to 72 DIMMs in one server .
The latter one has not been implemented.Where would you ever need this kind of memory ?
* Running VMware ESX , XenServer,... and assuming 3-4GB per VM - &gt; imagine 96 VMs per physical box * imagine running a 300GB MySQL database out of RAM without the need of a high end machineAlso the price per GB is not linear for memory .
8GB costs currently way more than 4x 2GB .
So if you still do n't need the 384GB memory , you can fill the 48DIMMs with 2GB and have a 96GB RAM server for a lower price.There are also a lot of other features which are really different and better than the competition , such as centralized management per 320 servers .
In more enterprise environments customers can also consolidate their SAN and their LAN network by using open standard FCoE.Please check it out at Cisco - Unified Computing System [ cisco.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for Cisco, so this post is biased.If you want to know more about Intel Nehalem 55xx architecture [zdnetasia.com].It explains that a the server manufacturer using the Intel Nehalem 55xx processor can support up to 3, 6 or 9 DIMMs/socket.
This corresponds with a memory bus speed of 1333, 1066 or 800Mhz.
The latter is not often implemented and would give you (9x2x8GB) 144GB in a dual socket system.What Cisco did is, developing a patented "memory switch" which presents up to 4 DIMMs as 1 to the processor, MULTIPLYING THE ALLOWED RAM TIMES FOUR.
If the memory is running at 1066Mhz this gives you 48DIMMs.
If the memory is running at 800Mhz this would allow up to 72 DIMMs in one server.
The latter one has not been implemented.Where would you ever need this kind of memory?
* Running VMware ESX, XenServer,... and assuming 3-4GB per VM -&gt; imagine 96 VMs per physical box* imagine running a 300GB MySQL database out of RAM without the need of a high end machineAlso the price per GB is not linear for memory.
8GB costs currently way more than 4x 2GB.
So if you still don't need the 384GB memory, you can fill the 48DIMMs with 2GB and have a 96GB RAM server for a lower price.There are also a lot of other features which are really different and better than the competition, such as centralized management per 320 servers.
In more enterprise environments customers can also consolidate their SAN and their LAN network by using open standard FCoE.Please check it out at Cisco - Unified Computing System [cisco.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28215433</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cisco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244112240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're a day late and a dollar short.</p><p>This market is already cornered by the likes of Dell, HP, and VMWare. Feel free to try in the market place however, but I think it's a big waste of your capitol and R&amp;D.</p></div><p>You're wrong. What cisco is doing is upping the memory to CPU ratio in a very small physical footprint. This is phenominally valuable for virtualized environments or for HPC environments for any host of reasons that are obvious if you understand enterprise computing. There is not a single hardware vendor out there that has server hardware that comes close to what Cisco is now providing with the UCS platform. Show me the Dell or HP system that can have 384GB of RAM. Cisco is a big VMware partner and they are not trying to compete with VMware, they are trying to become the preferred hardware platform for VMware environments.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a day late and a dollar short.This market is already cornered by the likes of Dell , HP , and VMWare .
Feel free to try in the market place however , but I think it 's a big waste of your capitol and R&amp;D.You 're wrong .
What cisco is doing is upping the memory to CPU ratio in a very small physical footprint .
This is phenominally valuable for virtualized environments or for HPC environments for any host of reasons that are obvious if you understand enterprise computing .
There is not a single hardware vendor out there that has server hardware that comes close to what Cisco is now providing with the UCS platform .
Show me the Dell or HP system that can have 384GB of RAM .
Cisco is a big VMware partner and they are not trying to compete with VMware , they are trying to become the preferred hardware platform for VMware environments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a day late and a dollar short.This market is already cornered by the likes of Dell, HP, and VMWare.
Feel free to try in the market place however, but I think it's a big waste of your capitol and R&amp;D.You're wrong.
What cisco is doing is upping the memory to CPU ratio in a very small physical footprint.
This is phenominally valuable for virtualized environments or for HPC environments for any host of reasons that are obvious if you understand enterprise computing.
There is not a single hardware vendor out there that has server hardware that comes close to what Cisco is now providing with the UCS platform.
Show me the Dell or HP system that can have 384GB of RAM.
Cisco is a big VMware partner and they are not trying to compete with VMware, they are trying to become the preferred hardware platform for VMware environments.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053</id>
	<title>Sorry Cisco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244043120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're a day late and a dollar short.</p><p>This market is already cornered by the likes of Dell, HP, and VMWare. Feel free to try in the market place however, but I think it's a big waste of your capitol and R&amp;D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a day late and a dollar short.This market is already cornered by the likes of Dell , HP , and VMWare .
Feel free to try in the market place however , but I think it 's a big waste of your capitol and R&amp;D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a day late and a dollar short.This market is already cornered by the likes of Dell, HP, and VMWare.
Feel free to try in the market place however, but I think it's a big waste of your capitol and R&amp;D.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28215781</id>
	<title>Re:Take that, HP!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244114100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah except Cisco already has the same Limited Lifetime Warranty on its Catalyst line EXCEPT the 6500.  The latest report that I saw didn't show any noticeable growth of the HP market share nor any noticeable reduction in Cisco's market share.<br>(do a google search as each Cisco catalyst has a separate data sheet and I'm not linking to all of them)</p><p>But hey there HP employee, not let the facts get in the way of the royal ass kicking that Cisco gives to you each day and you bet I'm biased.  I for one love to see HP as my competitor because I have YET TO LOSE.  Its not about warranty its about product quality and features and you cant even begin to compete.  I can sell HP, I just choose not to.</p><p>Now out of the way as I go kill the VirtualConnect story at my next customer...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah except Cisco already has the same Limited Lifetime Warranty on its Catalyst line EXCEPT the 6500 .
The latest report that I saw did n't show any noticeable growth of the HP market share nor any noticeable reduction in Cisco 's market share .
( do a google search as each Cisco catalyst has a separate data sheet and I 'm not linking to all of them ) But hey there HP employee , not let the facts get in the way of the royal ass kicking that Cisco gives to you each day and you bet I 'm biased .
I for one love to see HP as my competitor because I have YET TO LOSE .
Its not about warranty its about product quality and features and you cant even begin to compete .
I can sell HP , I just choose not to.Now out of the way as I go kill the VirtualConnect story at my next customer.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah except Cisco already has the same Limited Lifetime Warranty on its Catalyst line EXCEPT the 6500.
The latest report that I saw didn't show any noticeable growth of the HP market share nor any noticeable reduction in Cisco's market share.
(do a google search as each Cisco catalyst has a separate data sheet and I'm not linking to all of them)But hey there HP employee, not let the facts get in the way of the royal ass kicking that Cisco gives to you each day and you bet I'm biased.
I for one love to see HP as my competitor because I have YET TO LOSE.
Its not about warranty its about product quality and features and you cant even begin to compete.
I can sell HP, I just choose not to.Now out of the way as I go kill the VirtualConnect story at my next customer...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205371</id>
	<title>In Cisco tradition...</title>
	<author>sethstorm</author>
	<datestamp>1244046060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'll require an expensive support contract just to load any software on it or add any new hardware to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'll require an expensive support contract just to load any software on it or add any new hardware to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'll require an expensive support contract just to load any software on it or add any new hardware to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28206923</id>
	<title>why didn't they buy sun?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244110560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm surprised Cisco didn't simply buy Sun Microsystems - a reputation for making expensive, over-engineered hardware (both).
<br>
<br>
It's only a small step for Linksys to move from making NASs and media players/extenders to PCs, so I expect we'll see a Linksys version of some of the small eee desktop etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised Cisco did n't simply buy Sun Microsystems - a reputation for making expensive , over-engineered hardware ( both ) .
It 's only a small step for Linksys to move from making NASs and media players/extenders to PCs , so I expect we 'll see a Linksys version of some of the small eee desktop etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised Cisco didn't simply buy Sun Microsystems - a reputation for making expensive, over-engineered hardware (both).
It's only a small step for Linksys to move from making NASs and media players/extenders to PCs, so I expect we'll see a Linksys version of some of the small eee desktop etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28214359</id>
	<title>VPN client</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244106720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any news about Cisco VPN client for x64 Vista?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any news about Cisco VPN client for x64 Vista ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any news about Cisco VPN client for x64 Vista?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205297</id>
	<title>We get Signal!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244045280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-Main stripper turn us on!<br>-How are you Gentleman. All your racks are belong to us! You have no chance of survive make your time!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-Main stripper turn us on ! -How are you Gentleman .
All your racks are belong to us !
You have no chance of survive make your time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-Main stripper turn us on!-How are you Gentleman.
All your racks are belong to us!
You have no chance of survive make your time!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28208971</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cisco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244127720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm going to assume that your new PBX is a Cisco solution; I am absolutely DYING to know what kind of 1U PBX you were using that required a 6 server Unified Communication Manager farm to replace? Even with Unity (Voicemail) and IPCC (CallCenter) I seriously doubt your claims.<br> <br>Something along the lines of Unified Communication Manager Express as a module for an integrated service router seems much more fitting for your needs. Who designed your current setup?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to assume that your new PBX is a Cisco solution ; I am absolutely DYING to know what kind of 1U PBX you were using that required a 6 server Unified Communication Manager farm to replace ?
Even with Unity ( Voicemail ) and IPCC ( CallCenter ) I seriously doubt your claims .
Something along the lines of Unified Communication Manager Express as a module for an integrated service router seems much more fitting for your needs .
Who designed your current setup ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to assume that your new PBX is a Cisco solution; I am absolutely DYING to know what kind of 1U PBX you were using that required a 6 server Unified Communication Manager farm to replace?
Even with Unity (Voicemail) and IPCC (CallCenter) I seriously doubt your claims.
Something along the lines of Unified Communication Manager Express as a module for an integrated service router seems much more fitting for your needs.
Who designed your current setup?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28208333</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cisco</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1244124720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your forgetting opportunity cost. If the investment they make produces less profit than the same investment would produce in some other area of their business, then it was a bad move - from a "make as much money as possible" point of view anyway.</p><p>But I agree that CISCO isn't doing anything obviously stupid with this, they have a good chance of making a dent in the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your forgetting opportunity cost .
If the investment they make produces less profit than the same investment would produce in some other area of their business , then it was a bad move - from a " make as much money as possible " point of view anyway.But I agree that CISCO is n't doing anything obviously stupid with this , they have a good chance of making a dent in the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your forgetting opportunity cost.
If the investment they make produces less profit than the same investment would produce in some other area of their business, then it was a bad move - from a "make as much money as possible" point of view anyway.But I agree that CISCO isn't doing anything obviously stupid with this, they have a good chance of making a dent in the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207335</id>
	<title>Re:In Cisco tradition...</title>
	<author>machine321</author>
	<datestamp>1244116920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not quite; if you load any software on it not installed by the vendor (say, security patches) then you void the support contract.  At least, that's how they do it with their blue HP servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite ; if you load any software on it not installed by the vendor ( say , security patches ) then you void the support contract .
At least , that 's how they do it with their blue HP servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite; if you load any software on it not installed by the vendor (say, security patches) then you void the support contract.
At least, that's how they do it with their blue HP servers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28220973</id>
	<title>Re:In Cisco tradition...</title>
	<author>highonv8splash</author>
	<datestamp>1244209920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just like with all other servers in the business world...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like with all other servers in the business world.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like with all other servers in the business world...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205211</id>
	<title>Re:In other news</title>
	<author>mrsteveman1</author>
	<datestamp>1244044500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're thinking of <i>crisco</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're thinking of crisco</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're thinking of crisco</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28220095</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cisco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244201700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. VMware do not sell servers. Dell, HP, Sun (Oracle) and IBM yes, but not VMware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
VMware do not sell servers .
Dell , HP , Sun ( Oracle ) and IBM yes , but not VMware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
VMware do not sell servers.
Dell, HP, Sun (Oracle) and IBM yes, but not VMware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28206309</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cisco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244059140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but how many vendors can offer free Linksys router with 802.11g on every 2 server purchases?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but how many vendors can offer free Linksys router with 802.11g on every 2 server purchases ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but how many vendors can offer free Linksys router with 802.11g on every 2 server purchases?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207163</id>
	<title>Re:Take that, HP!</title>
	<author>fwr</author>
	<datestamp>1244114280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Certain Cisco switches have limited lifetime warraties now also.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Certain Cisco switches have limited lifetime warraties now also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Certain Cisco switches have limited lifetime warraties now also.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205355</id>
	<title>Way to enter the market with a splash, Cisco...</title>
	<author>TD-Linux</author>
	<datestamp>1244045940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Seriously, Cisco? Yet another boring Xenon server? There are so many out there I can't tell the difference.
</p><p>
You could have done something unique and interesting... throw a couple ARM Cortexes into a ultra-low-power 1U server... and make it completely redundant, just for kicks. Or you could have integrated something you are good at, like, well... I guess that option is becoming slimmer.
</p><p>
Anyway, cheers for yet another undistinguished product entering a crowded market aimed at legacy users with falling demand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , Cisco ?
Yet another boring Xenon server ?
There are so many out there I ca n't tell the difference .
You could have done something unique and interesting... throw a couple ARM Cortexes into a ultra-low-power 1U server... and make it completely redundant , just for kicks .
Or you could have integrated something you are good at , like , well... I guess that option is becoming slimmer .
Anyway , cheers for yet another undistinguished product entering a crowded market aimed at legacy users with falling demand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Seriously, Cisco?
Yet another boring Xenon server?
There are so many out there I can't tell the difference.
You could have done something unique and interesting... throw a couple ARM Cortexes into a ultra-low-power 1U server... and make it completely redundant, just for kicks.
Or you could have integrated something you are good at, like, well... I guess that option is becoming slimmer.
Anyway, cheers for yet another undistinguished product entering a crowded market aimed at legacy users with falling demand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205295</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cisco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244045280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Still won't try to <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1251549&amp;threshold=0&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=nested&amp;cid=28162599" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">name one</a> [slashdot.org], huh?  Then you're admitting that you're a liar.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still wo n't try to name one [ slashdot.org ] , huh ?
Then you 're admitting that you 're a liar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still won't try to name one [slashdot.org], huh?
Then you're admitting that you're a liar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28214505</id>
	<title>Rounding out the Cisco server product line</title>
	<author>nokiator</author>
	<datestamp>1244107560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These new 1U/2U servers may appear to be even less interesting than the California (UCS) products that were introduced earlier this year. However, the reality is that Cisco is actually rounding out the lower end of its server product line before they introduce the much more innovative, higher end (higher margin) SMP systems later this year. Intel just announced the new SMP platforms based on 8-core processors that scale to 4 and 8 sockets. Expect Cisco to scale the socket count even further. Going into the server market with some conventional products enables them to build sales channels and ramp up the service organization to get ready for the real stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These new 1U/2U servers may appear to be even less interesting than the California ( UCS ) products that were introduced earlier this year .
However , the reality is that Cisco is actually rounding out the lower end of its server product line before they introduce the much more innovative , higher end ( higher margin ) SMP systems later this year .
Intel just announced the new SMP platforms based on 8-core processors that scale to 4 and 8 sockets .
Expect Cisco to scale the socket count even further .
Going into the server market with some conventional products enables them to build sales channels and ramp up the service organization to get ready for the real stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These new 1U/2U servers may appear to be even less interesting than the California (UCS) products that were introduced earlier this year.
However, the reality is that Cisco is actually rounding out the lower end of its server product line before they introduce the much more innovative, higher end (higher margin) SMP systems later this year.
Intel just announced the new SMP platforms based on 8-core processors that scale to 4 and 8 sockets.
Expect Cisco to scale the socket count even further.
Going into the server market with some conventional products enables them to build sales channels and ramp up the service organization to get ready for the real stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207737</id>
	<title>Re:These look cool - but not for RAM</title>
	<author>GaryOlson</author>
	<datestamp>1244121240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...consolidate their SAN and their LAN network by using open standard FCoE.</p></div><p> Oh joy, another new connection method with all new connection hardware with all new expenses and all new training. I still haven't reached effective ROI on the FC installation. Please tell me why I need to incur this expense?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...consolidate their SAN and their LAN network by using open standard FCoE .
Oh joy , another new connection method with all new connection hardware with all new expenses and all new training .
I still have n't reached effective ROI on the FC installation .
Please tell me why I need to incur this expense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...consolidate their SAN and their LAN network by using open standard FCoE.
Oh joy, another new connection method with all new connection hardware with all new expenses and all new training.
I still haven't reached effective ROI on the FC installation.
Please tell me why I need to incur this expense?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28206895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205015</id>
	<title>In other news</title>
	<author>moniker127</author>
	<datestamp>1244042760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mcdonalds- budabapbadah- i'm lovin it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mcdonalds- budabapbadah- i 'm lovin it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mcdonalds- budabapbadah- i'm lovin it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205573</id>
	<title>Re:These look cool - but not for RAM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244048340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"172GB ought to be enough for anybody!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" 172GB ought to be enough for anybody !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"172GB ought to be enough for anybody!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28211561</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cisco</title>
	<author>Patch86</author>
	<datestamp>1244138220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't really understand the hostility (not really from parent, but from this whole thread).</p><p>Cisco is a hardware manufacturer/provider/rebrander/supporter/whatever it is they do with hardware. Rackmounts are hardware. Cisco is big. What's to stop them entering into a new market? It isn't like they're trying to broach a monopoly or anything here- the market in question is relatively healthy.</p><p>If they want to try their hands at a new product, hats off to them. They're big enough, rich enough and influential enough that they might do well, or then again they might not. That's the market for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really understand the hostility ( not really from parent , but from this whole thread ) .Cisco is a hardware manufacturer/provider/rebrander/supporter/whatever it is they do with hardware .
Rackmounts are hardware .
Cisco is big .
What 's to stop them entering into a new market ?
It is n't like they 're trying to broach a monopoly or anything here- the market in question is relatively healthy.If they want to try their hands at a new product , hats off to them .
They 're big enough , rich enough and influential enough that they might do well , or then again they might not .
That 's the market for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really understand the hostility (not really from parent, but from this whole thread).Cisco is a hardware manufacturer/provider/rebrander/supporter/whatever it is they do with hardware.
Rackmounts are hardware.
Cisco is big.
What's to stop them entering into a new market?
It isn't like they're trying to broach a monopoly or anything here- the market in question is relatively healthy.If they want to try their hands at a new product, hats off to them.
They're big enough, rich enough and influential enough that they might do well, or then again they might not.
That's the market for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205507</id>
	<title>Cisco....</title>
	<author>snowblind</author>
	<datestamp>1244047620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...jumped the shark when the changed to the "cute" logo. Now this is just them introducing a smart mouthed kid to make us chuckle until they end up in re-run hell.</p><p>What do you do when you're at the top of your market share and can't innovate to come up with something else and you've bought up every home market vendor?</p><p>Crash in on a new commodity market with an overpriced product; while maybe considered a caddilac, sell it at Mercedes prices.</p><p>All the while Juniper's chomping at your heals in your traditional space with a rock solid product and chipping away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...jumped the shark when the changed to the " cute " logo .
Now this is just them introducing a smart mouthed kid to make us chuckle until they end up in re-run hell.What do you do when you 're at the top of your market share and ca n't innovate to come up with something else and you 've bought up every home market vendor ? Crash in on a new commodity market with an overpriced product ; while maybe considered a caddilac , sell it at Mercedes prices.All the while Juniper 's chomping at your heals in your traditional space with a rock solid product and chipping away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...jumped the shark when the changed to the "cute" logo.
Now this is just them introducing a smart mouthed kid to make us chuckle until they end up in re-run hell.What do you do when you're at the top of your market share and can't innovate to come up with something else and you've bought up every home market vendor?Crash in on a new commodity market with an overpriced product; while maybe considered a caddilac, sell it at Mercedes prices.All the while Juniper's chomping at your heals in your traditional space with a rock solid product and chipping away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207249</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cisco</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1244115840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i> In fact, not only have I *never* purchased hardware from any of the vendors you name, one of the vendors doesn't even sell hardware! (when did VMWare get into the hardware business?)</i></p></div><p>
Since ESX Server.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , not only have I * never * purchased hardware from any of the vendors you name , one of the vendors does n't even sell hardware !
( when did VMWare get into the hardware business ?
) Since ESX Server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  In fact, not only have I *never* purchased hardware from any of the vendors you name, one of the vendors doesn't even sell hardware!
(when did VMWare get into the hardware business?
)
Since ESX Server.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205415</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cisco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244046600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You're a day late and a dollar short.</i></p><p>You don't understand how this "free market economy" works, do you?</p><p>All that's needed for Cisco is to sell more product than it costs them to make. That's called <b>profit</b>. So long as they make a profit, it's a good move. If they don't sell enough, then it's a short-lived moved.</p><p>The fact that you named so many vendors (Dell, HP, VMWare) makes it clear that it's still an *open* marketplace, and that there is still competition. Thus, it's not "cornered" by any stretch. In fact, not only have I *never* purchased hardware from any of the vendors you name, one of the vendors doesn't even sell hardware! (when did VMWare get into the hardware business?)</p><p>Personally, I welcome another hat thrown into the fray! The only possible thing that could come of this is lower prices, better quality, and more likely both. Predicting their demise as they enter the marketplace, when they are one of the most well-known and trusted brands in IT is just a tad premature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a day late and a dollar short.You do n't understand how this " free market economy " works , do you ? All that 's needed for Cisco is to sell more product than it costs them to make .
That 's called profit .
So long as they make a profit , it 's a good move .
If they do n't sell enough , then it 's a short-lived moved.The fact that you named so many vendors ( Dell , HP , VMWare ) makes it clear that it 's still an * open * marketplace , and that there is still competition .
Thus , it 's not " cornered " by any stretch .
In fact , not only have I * never * purchased hardware from any of the vendors you name , one of the vendors does n't even sell hardware !
( when did VMWare get into the hardware business ?
) Personally , I welcome another hat thrown into the fray !
The only possible thing that could come of this is lower prices , better quality , and more likely both .
Predicting their demise as they enter the marketplace , when they are one of the most well-known and trusted brands in IT is just a tad premature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a day late and a dollar short.You don't understand how this "free market economy" works, do you?All that's needed for Cisco is to sell more product than it costs them to make.
That's called profit.
So long as they make a profit, it's a good move.
If they don't sell enough, then it's a short-lived moved.The fact that you named so many vendors (Dell, HP, VMWare) makes it clear that it's still an *open* marketplace, and that there is still competition.
Thus, it's not "cornered" by any stretch.
In fact, not only have I *never* purchased hardware from any of the vendors you name, one of the vendors doesn't even sell hardware!
(when did VMWare get into the hardware business?
)Personally, I welcome another hat thrown into the fray!
The only possible thing that could come of this is lower prices, better quality, and more likely both.
Predicting their demise as they enter the marketplace, when they are one of the most well-known and trusted brands in IT is just a tad premature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205159</id>
	<title>OEM HP servers?</title>
	<author>c0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1244044020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last I knew, Cisco was selling products using OEM'ed HP servers.  Sure they aren't just HP servers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I knew , Cisco was selling products using OEM'ed HP servers .
Sure they are n't just HP servers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I knew, Cisco was selling products using OEM'ed HP servers.
Sure they aren't just HP servers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207783</id>
	<title>Re:Take that, HP!</title>
	<author>comm3c</author>
	<datestamp>1244121480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heh... this isn't just about the network gear, this is also about HP's acquisition of EDS.<p>You see, once upon a time, HP left their network gear alone. Cisco and HP weren't much of competitors. Then, one day, after firing a CEO, HP decided that they should try to push the product line.</p><p> In the mean time, Cisco wasn't worried. But Cisco also had this "strategic alliance" with EDS, complete with multiple teams related to the account. One day, EDS got sold to HP. HP is pushing its product on EDS customers.</p><p>Cisco has the money to do this. Ever since around 2003, they have made sure to keep a good amount of cash on hand to finance their own endeavors. Yes, HP offers a lifetime warranty on their products but for anything more than access switches, I wouldn't use them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh... this is n't just about the network gear , this is also about HP 's acquisition of EDS.You see , once upon a time , HP left their network gear alone .
Cisco and HP were n't much of competitors .
Then , one day , after firing a CEO , HP decided that they should try to push the product line .
In the mean time , Cisco was n't worried .
But Cisco also had this " strategic alliance " with EDS , complete with multiple teams related to the account .
One day , EDS got sold to HP .
HP is pushing its product on EDS customers.Cisco has the money to do this .
Ever since around 2003 , they have made sure to keep a good amount of cash on hand to finance their own endeavors .
Yes , HP offers a lifetime warranty on their products but for anything more than access switches , I would n't use them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh... this isn't just about the network gear, this is also about HP's acquisition of EDS.You see, once upon a time, HP left their network gear alone.
Cisco and HP weren't much of competitors.
Then, one day, after firing a CEO, HP decided that they should try to push the product line.
In the mean time, Cisco wasn't worried.
But Cisco also had this "strategic alliance" with EDS, complete with multiple teams related to the account.
One day, EDS got sold to HP.
HP is pushing its product on EDS customers.Cisco has the money to do this.
Ever since around 2003, they have made sure to keep a good amount of cash on hand to finance their own endeavors.
Yes, HP offers a lifetime warranty on their products but for anything more than access switches, I wouldn't use them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28206195</id>
	<title>I hear</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1244057760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear that it's game on!  Cisco intends nothing less than openn war with all its server vendor partners including HP, IBM and Dell.
</p><p>So that's an easy short.  Who wants to bet against HP, IBM and Dell?  To bet one against the other is arbitrage.  To bet against all of them at once is just dumb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear that it 's game on !
Cisco intends nothing less than openn war with all its server vendor partners including HP , IBM and Dell .
So that 's an easy short .
Who wants to bet against HP , IBM and Dell ?
To bet one against the other is arbitrage .
To bet against all of them at once is just dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear that it's game on!
Cisco intends nothing less than openn war with all its server vendor partners including HP, IBM and Dell.
So that's an easy short.
Who wants to bet against HP, IBM and Dell?
To bet one against the other is arbitrage.
To bet against all of them at once is just dumb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205581</id>
	<title>Wait. What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244048520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait.  What?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait .
What ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait.
What?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205513</id>
	<title>mod d0wn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244047680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>userS. Surprise dabblers. In truth,</htmltext>
<tokenext>userS .
Surprise dabblers .
In truth,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>userS.
Surprise dabblers.
In truth,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207577</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cisco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244119920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Personally, I welcome another hat thrown into the fray! The only possible thing that could come of this is lower prices, better quality, and more likely both</p><p>You have obviously never purchased Cisco gear directly from Cisco.  Better Quality, perhaps, but lower prices????  Cisco is the Morton's or Ruth's Chris of the hardware world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Personally , I welcome another hat thrown into the fray !
The only possible thing that could come of this is lower prices , better quality , and more likely bothYou have obviously never purchased Cisco gear directly from Cisco .
Better Quality , perhaps , but lower prices ? ? ? ?
Cisco is the Morton 's or Ruth 's Chris of the hardware world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Personally, I welcome another hat thrown into the fray!
The only possible thing that could come of this is lower prices, better quality, and more likely bothYou have obviously never purchased Cisco gear directly from Cisco.
Better Quality, perhaps, but lower prices????
Cisco is the Morton's or Ruth's Chris of the hardware world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28216181</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cisco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244116260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's Capital (assets available for use in the production of further assets) not Capitol (a building occupied by a state legislature)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Capital ( assets available for use in the production of further assets ) not Capitol ( a building occupied by a state legislature )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Capital (assets available for use in the production of further assets) not Capitol (a building occupied by a state legislature)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28206139</id>
	<title>The only people who believe in Gartner still</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1244056800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have divorced themselves from reason.  Gartner's purpose is <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1235565&amp;cid=27981867" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">to tell us what Microsoft wants us to think</a> [slashdot.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have divorced themselves from reason .
Gartner 's purpose is to tell us what Microsoft wants us to think [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have divorced themselves from reason.
Gartner's purpose is to tell us what Microsoft wants us to think [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207795</id>
	<title>It is called opportunity cost.</title>
	<author>an.echte.trilingue</author>
	<datestamp>1244121600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was going to reply and say the same thing, but then I saw the parent.  Just to expand (for the benefit of the GP):
<br> <br>
The concept is called opportunity cost. Basically, the if you do A, but B would have made more money, B-A= the amount of money you lost doing A = opportunity cost.
<br> <br>
This is, incidentally, the reason that competition in free market economies pounds out inefficiencies.  If a person is efficient at programming computers but inefficient at fixing cars, then he can fix his car in less time by trading his programming for car fixing. For the mechanic, it is the other way around: he can easily earn enough in a couple of hours to pay the programmer to do what would take him days. Money is, in this sense, just a medium to facilitate this kind of exchange.
<br> <br>
Companies work the same way.  If Cisco were to open a business supplying flying cars, they could probably scratch a profit.  But they lack the experience, knowledge and brand to do that efficiently.  However, they are very good at networking equipment, and for the same money that it would take to make cars, they could just branch off of what they now into, say, subspace communication. Meanwhile, toyota, who already understands the fundamentals of how to build nice vehicles that people want to drive, can build the flying cars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to reply and say the same thing , but then I saw the parent .
Just to expand ( for the benefit of the GP ) : The concept is called opportunity cost .
Basically , the if you do A , but B would have made more money , B-A = the amount of money you lost doing A = opportunity cost .
This is , incidentally , the reason that competition in free market economies pounds out inefficiencies .
If a person is efficient at programming computers but inefficient at fixing cars , then he can fix his car in less time by trading his programming for car fixing .
For the mechanic , it is the other way around : he can easily earn enough in a couple of hours to pay the programmer to do what would take him days .
Money is , in this sense , just a medium to facilitate this kind of exchange .
Companies work the same way .
If Cisco were to open a business supplying flying cars , they could probably scratch a profit .
But they lack the experience , knowledge and brand to do that efficiently .
However , they are very good at networking equipment , and for the same money that it would take to make cars , they could just branch off of what they now into , say , subspace communication .
Meanwhile , toyota , who already understands the fundamentals of how to build nice vehicles that people want to drive , can build the flying cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to reply and say the same thing, but then I saw the parent.
Just to expand (for the benefit of the GP):
 
The concept is called opportunity cost.
Basically, the if you do A, but B would have made more money, B-A= the amount of money you lost doing A = opportunity cost.
This is, incidentally, the reason that competition in free market economies pounds out inefficiencies.
If a person is efficient at programming computers but inefficient at fixing cars, then he can fix his car in less time by trading his programming for car fixing.
For the mechanic, it is the other way around: he can easily earn enough in a couple of hours to pay the programmer to do what would take him days.
Money is, in this sense, just a medium to facilitate this kind of exchange.
Companies work the same way.
If Cisco were to open a business supplying flying cars, they could probably scratch a profit.
But they lack the experience, knowledge and brand to do that efficiently.
However, they are very good at networking equipment, and for the same money that it would take to make cars, they could just branch off of what they now into, say, subspace communication.
Meanwhile, toyota, who already understands the fundamentals of how to build nice vehicles that people want to drive, can build the flying cars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205977</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28220095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28206139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28215433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28206309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28206895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28206897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28208971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28220973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28211561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28206195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28208333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28216181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2234210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28215781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2234210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28206895
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28206897
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2234210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205211
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2234210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205701
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2234210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28220973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2234210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2234210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28206195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28215781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205311
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207163
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2234210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28216181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28220095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28215433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28206309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205313
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28208971
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28206139
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28211561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205415
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207577
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205977
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207795
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207249
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28208333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28207291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28205295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2234210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2234210.28206923
</commentlist>
</conversation>
