On 1 Dec 2007 08:35:19 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Day) wrote: > Your statement vis-a-vis growth to consolidation is probably dead on, >but the reason IBM does not want PSI in this ball game has to do with >commodity pricing vs. specialty pricing. Exodus from MVS started almost 20 >years ago. Those shops that felt another platform was justified and could >successfully make the transition off have done so. What we have left are >the shops that are probably not going to move.
Shops are still moving away from IBM Mainframes. It tends to happen when they buy into a different software package - and only a small percentage of these are IBM mainframe based. Mainframes do what they do very well, but companies want something new, and the packages that offer them something new tend to run on other hardware. The decision makers don't know whether that other hardware is adequate - but they don't see their old hardware as being sufficient. I understand the philosophy of "the way I clean my garage is to move". An example in the computer industry is comparing OS-X with Windows. Apple has changed the core of its OS a couple of times to run with different types of chips, and now is Unix based. Starting over meant it was able to re-design some features that were vulnerable. Microsoft chose not to start over, but to evolve - making it much more difficult to fix old vulnerabilities. It is a lot of work to redesign a working system for a company, especially if it means changing some of the business practices. But there is a distinct upside in emptying the dirty bath water and starting over. Some of the features that are desired in new designs include: 1. The whole system is designed with modern security & privacy needs in mind. The mainframe excelled in this - as long as the whole system was on the mainframe. But that is no longer the case for most shops. The system has grown in many directions. 2. The new system uses skills that are available from people coming out of College today. 3. Components are attractive - add a server here - or better yet a bunch of servers in the next county over - a bit at a time as an expense instead of as a capital expenditure. That makes it easier for managers. The downside to this is that it will be much harder to start over next time - but that will be the next manager's headache. IBM is pushing databases. Data warehouses should be an easy sell for mainframes - easier than what I observe happening. IBM is selling Unix. But what I want to see is IBM selling to the people who have moved to Sun - and now know how much it costs to get the power they want. Can they move their software over? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
