________________________________ From: Eric Bielefeld <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, February 27, 2010 9:13:19 AM Subject: Re: Item on TPF
I'm curious. How much more does z/OS cost than z/VSE? An approximate percentage is good enough. What are your reasons for converting? It sounds like from the way you worded your comment below that z/VSE doesn't have some restrictions that z/OS does, although I may have misread your comments. I did a conversion back in 1985 from DOS to MVS 1.3.6. I think it took alomost as long to convert from DOS to MVS as it did to get off of the mainframe 4 years ago. In 1985, we ran 5 DOS guests under VM. Eric Bielefeld -----SNIP------------ Eric: I can't address the costs since I did my last conversion in the late 80's (from VS1). As to the reasoning MVS is a a hell of a lot faster with IO (due mainly due to buffering and excp processing. I think you misunderstood what I was saying DOS/VSE has A LOT of restrictions that MVS does not. The article talks about one of them and that is that in DOS/VSE(?) there is a restriction of 999 sysxxx "DD" statements (in MVS) and even then apparently is less that 999. The article (when is made available online) goes on with other issues so need to clutter up the list here. The article didn't mention the issue of vsam space (as someone on here did) . Please watch the URL to see in detail more on the DOS limitations. I actually was intrigued about TPF its been a long time since I have seen any information on it. Even with z/tpf they have some strange restrictions that are just now being address by IBM. Ed ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
