IBM still supports a lot of the old hardware, even if the price for doing so increases each year. There are other sources of support. Unsupported is not the right adjective and is just a way to increase fud. If I spend a couple of million on a capital project, I have every right to expect it to last longer than a couple of years. Ideally, it should last longer than the tax depreciation schedule. The last time I checked, software doesn't wear out. The features of 2.10 that are used in my shop work fine. Why should I care if one I don't use is broken and won't be fixed? Why should I spend the resources (not just money but time and effort but time and effort that could also be better spent) for some upgrade for which there is no business. A new version every six months is not something IBM should be proud of. It's the same marketing mentality that causes grocery stores to put the banana racks in the middle of the cereal aisle, completely destroying the traffic pattern.
"Edward E. Jaffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Eric, I believe the article was talking about companies that -- in spite of IBM's best efforts -- are running *unsupported* hardware and software combinations. (I hope that's not American Airlines!) Such an organization can hardly be compared to an installation, currently running z990 hardware, having their System z9 109 upgrade deferred. We're talking about companies that are *seriously* back level! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
