Re: Re: Re: Corrections to some previous FUD comments

Bladecentre E does not have all of the networking capabilities of the Bladecentre H so its not a fair comparison, if you want the IBM equivalent of the c7000 you have to specify the H.

Sorry I didnt clarify what I meant by diversity, HP also have a wide range of processor options (usually more Xeons and Opterons supported) plus Itanium (of which they have the highest market share of RISC/EPIC blades). Of course HP dont have to cut any processors down to fit their chassis thermals, unlike IBM

What I meant was that if you wanted a virtualisation platform then you can buy an optimised one from HP that gives you much higher memory density per socket than anything IBM can offer the bl490/5c. If you want a HPC grid you buy a 2x220c that gives you 4 cpu sockets in a half height so you can have 256 cores in 10u. If you want to do VDI there is a blade with an inbuilt graphics card. If you want cost effective and power efficient you buy a bl280c. So on and so forth. As I stated if IBM blades were really that good why have they constistently lost market share! My meaing was that HP have alot more specialist blades for particular tasks, IBM have some generic blades that you have to try and tweak for a specific task.

Thats before I even start talking about any of the chassis technologies like Virtual Connect or the power and thermal technologies (that IBM cant even get close to!). Oh and IBM Open Fabric Manager isnt a patch on Virtual Connect (no pun intended) particularly now Flex-10 is around.

Oh and you still have not answered the thermals issue!

Oh and blade.org is a joke, HP has far more partners as part of its HP BladeSystem Solution Builder than blade.org. blade.org is just IBM's way of trying to force their (inferior) product as the industry standard which based on their repeated market share decline is not working.