On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:15:45 -0500, Ron Wells <[email protected]> wrote:
>Unfortunately there still needs to be lower costs on the software ... >Still run up against cost cheaper on another platform it's the same >application.. but since it runs on the M/F it costs more .. There are >Vendors out there that are reasonable .. like MacKinney .. but not enough >of them to make a dent .. > This is the case where "n" smaller servers are "better" than the mainframe. Most, if not all, z shops upgrade their processors due to the increase in their application workload. That is, they are running the same software, but more data or running more CPU intensive software that they wrote themselves. However, every <elided> vendor assumes that when you upgrade your CPU it is simply to run their software even more. So the software bill goes up through the roof. On the distributed side, you get a new box and only license the software you need on that one box. I.e. if you get a new Windows box, running IIS, you get those two licenses. You don't need to get a better Oracle license, or a new license for every Windows CA product that you have, and so on. So adding processing power can be very much cheaper, especially in the short term. Which is the only way that management thinks. They rarely consider infrastructure support cost increase (just let the current people work longer hours, silly!) -- John ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
