Rick and Steve and others make points along the lines of... > And when they stop laughing at that, tell them how much throughput and > multi-tasking a mainframe can do compared to their wimpy Windows boxes. > How many servers it takes to match even ONE z/OS system, and how much > floor space, electricity, and software maintenance that takes by > comparison. How you live in a world where there is NO "blue screen of > death." How your systems can handle thousands of transactions per > second, when theirs clog up with only dozens. How your DASD can beat up > their DASD. How you can't infect a mainframe with a virus.
And oh boy, I get to be the bad guy again! With all due respect, you guys need to get out more. Your perceptions on the relative scale and performance (and even reliability) of the "squatty boxes" are well out of date. So how many servers does it take to match one z? Well, um... one. Less actually depending on what you're comparing. A typical mainframe -vs- a single seat PC? Well ok, you win that contest on most (but not all) grounds. Mainframe -vs- Bad Ass(tm) open systems server box like (say) a mid to high end p series? Or a Superdome? Trust me, you really don't want to pick on that dude. He'll eat your lunch and size you up for dinner too. Honestly guys, I am a pro-mainframe guy. I even used to work in the same place as Steve <mumble> years ago. So take as read that I am not ignorantly mainframe bashing. Mainframes have many fine attributes, but they're not the king of the hill any more. Not even close. Sorry. CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
