In ofcba14ef4.35cea077-on48257718.001f04be-48257718.0020c...@us.ibm.com,
on 05/03/2010
at 01:58 PM, Timothy Sipples timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com said:
May I humbly point out that I've run into way too many mainframe people
which reject all user demands for Web UIs.
I haven't, although I have
On Thu, 6 May 2010 11:50:58 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
They don't have to be bloated, fragile and opaque, but they all too often
are[1]. By all means provide web access where it makes sense, but *DO IT
RIGHT*.
[1] Yes, that includes IBM web pages.
FWIW, www.ibm.com is one of the few
timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com (Timothy Sipples) writes:
Back when the Web was entirely new and barely developed at CERN, the IBM
mainframe was the second type of machine in the world to offer a Web user
interface -- and the first machine anywhere outside Switzerland. Stanford
University did that,
In listserv%201004280756495759.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 04/28/2010
at 07:56 AM, Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com said:
It may reduce training costs, but I'm not persuaded that a webified
application increases productivity over a well designed 3270 based
application.
Optimist! I'm
that the traditional technology/price decline link
would have produced
... snip ...
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010h.html#81 25 reasons why hardware is still hot
at IBM
zjournal article references that lack of clone processors allowed
charging $18m for a system that otherwise would have been $3m
Sometimes I like topic drift. :-)
Yes, there are occasions when (well designed) 3270 user interfaces can
provide productivity benefits over even reasonably well designed Web user
interfaces. Many airline check-in counters and many industries' call
centers still use 3270 user interfaces for
... and
IBM's Unix poaching slows in Q1
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/29/ibm_unix_takeouts/
from above
... despite a 17 per cent decline in both Power Systems and System z
mainframe sales.
... snip ...
and ...
In November 2008, HP was perfectly happy to crow that it had converted
more
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of zMan
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:32 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: 25 reasons why hardware is still hot at IBM
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Clark Morris
cfmpub
MacNEIL
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 2:00 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: 25 reasons why hardware is still hot at IBM
I recall my supervisor telling me in the early nineties that the trend was
toward fewer systems programmers.
I thought the trend started earlier.
I had a colleague, around
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 07:31:51 -0500, McKown, John wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of zMan
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:32 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: 25 reasons why hardware is still hot at IBM
On 27 Apr 2010 12:37:45 -0700, st...@trainersfriend.com (Steve
Comstock) wrote:
IBM's not telling the story of the glories of z/OS? We need
to make it seem more desirable than Windows and Linux and
Unix to the decision makers. Any suggestions?
The funny thing is that IBM doesn't seem to be
On 27 Apr 2010 11:19:52 -0700, eamacn...@yahoo.ca (Ted MacNEIL) wrote:
Training for z/OS related cours are decreasing.
Does that mean there are fewer mainframes?
Or, does that mean there are fewer managers willing to spend money on training?
When the philosophy is to spend less on training, a
On 28 Apr 2010 05:57:54 -0700, m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com (Tom Marchant)
wrote:
It may reduce training costs, but I'm not persuaded that a webified
application increases productivity over a well designed 3270 based
application. 3270 applications tend to perform better than similar
web
I was told in 1980 that by 1985 all systems would be turnkey and therefore my
decision to enter into systems programming was a mistake. Best thirty year
mistake of my life! :-)
There are fewer SYSPROGs supporting larger and more systems than back then.
And, there are more unemployed technical
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:33:42 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
I was told in 1980 that by 1985 ...
There are fewer SYSPROGs supporting larger and more systems
than back then.
Is that based upon anecdotal evidence? Here's another.
One of the biggest sites that I dealt with from 1980 to 1985 had
ten
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 08:22:50 -0600, Howard Brazee wrote:
The funny thing is that IBM doesn't seem to be pushing Linux and Unix
on the mainframe either.
Our shop is going Linux/Unix and getting rid of its mainframe, but
keeping the mainframe was never considered.
Other than Linux, I know of two
On 28 Apr 2010 07:34:11 -0700, eamacn...@yahoo.ca (Ted MacNEIL) wrote:
I was told in 1980 that by 1985 all systems would be turnkey and therefore my
decision to enter into systems programming was a mistake. Best thirty year
mistake of my life! :-)
There are fewer SYSPROGs supporting larger and
On 28 Apr 2010 08:23:42 -0700, paulgboul...@aim.com (Paul Gilmartin)
wrote:
The funny thing is that IBM doesn't seem to be pushing Linux and Unix
on the mainframe either.
Our shop is going Linux/Unix and getting rid of its mainframe, but
keeping the mainframe was never considered.
Other than
On 27 Apr 2010 19:32:43 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Clark Morris
cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.cawrote:
.Many of the applications currently running on z are
in need of serious overhaul or replacement...
Based on what? Do they work? If so, why do
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.cawrote:
Granted this is based on the applications that I worked on personally
over the past 20 years but most of them were difficult to change, had
interesting anomalies in them and were poorly documented at best.
While
Being technical doesn't make someone a SYSPROG.
Hair-splitting.
Being a SYSPROG makes you technical, but only a subset of technical.
Disaster planning, operations management, capacity planning, and other
disciplines are also technical.
They need to get hired before the existing SYSPROGs retire,
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:45:27 +, Eric Bielefeld eric-
ibmm...@wi.rr.com wrote:
So Toronto hasn't lost many of its mainframes? That's good to hear. I
suspect that my experiences in Milwaukee are similar to a lot more people's on
this list than yours are. Anyone care to comment?
Bay City,
john.mck...@healthmarkets.com (McKown, John) writes:
Most are 3270 oriented. In today's world, that is difficult for end
users to comprehend. So, webifying an application so that it can run
on a browser makes it much easier for the typical end user to use. And
that reduces cost by decreasing
snip-
Bay City, MI had several mainframes 25 years ago. To my knowledge they now
have none, and it has been that way for almost twenty years. Back in those
days most banks and hospitals and many manufacturers and insurance
companies
On 28 Apr 2010 10:40:17 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.cawrote:
Granted this is based on the applications that I worked on personally
over the past 20 years but most of them were difficult to change, had
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.cawrote:
They may be better than nothing but with inadequate help they may mean
the people who are entering data may be making mistakes they
shouldn't. I have run into cases where wrong actions were taken for
years.
MIPS that the traditional technology/price decline link
would have produced
... snip ...
past posts in this thread:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010h.html#51 25 reasons why hardware is still hot
at IBM
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010h.html#56 25 reasons why hardware is still hot
at IBM
http
Ted MacNEIL pisze:
Even IBM admits (I'VE SEEN IT SOMEWHERE) that number of mainframe datacenters is not growing but quickly explains it as effect of
consolidation.
Tell us where.
Or, consider a statement without substantiation what it's worth.
Why? I see no interest in providing exact
Forget data centers -- Milwaukee's entire economy was a lot different 25
years ago. Milwaukee has taken huge hits, particularly in the manufacturing
sector. (Although there are some excellent survivors.) To pick another
example, there really aren't many locally headquartered banks any more.
Most
. Say no more...
Best regards
Aled L Hughes
-Original Message-
From: Timothy Sipples timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Tue, Apr 27, 2010 10:11 am
Subject: Re: 25 reasons why hardware is still hot at IBM
Forget data centers -- Milwaukee's entire economy
On 26 Apr 2010 08:50:46 -0700, eamacn...@yahoo.ca (Ted MacNEIL) wrote:
A faster wrench means you are driving the screws in faster!
If the screws are designed to be screwed in by a wrench, and if the
high speed doesn't mess up the hole.
But carpenters have alternatives to screws that often allow
One thing we can see is the number of jobs supporting mainframes is
down.This may be because mainframes are all running much more
efficiently, and we don't need sysops and programmers nearly as much.
But I don't think so.
Certainly, compared to the numbers of people supporting non-mainframe
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Howard Brazee
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 8:34 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: 25 reasons why hardware is still hot at IBM
One thing we can see is the number of jobs supporting
Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
What about South Africa - how many new customers do you know? How
many closed (migrated) mainframe shops do you know? What's the balance?
Anywhere between 20 to 200 companies countrywide hosting z/OS, OS/390 or
MVS systems. Actual number of datacentres varies from
at IBM
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010h.html#56 25 reasons why hardware is still hot
at IBM
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010h.html#62 25 reasons why hardware is still hot
at IBM
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010h.html#63 25 reasons why hardware is still hot
at IBM
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn
I recall my supervisor telling me in the early nineties that the trend was
toward fewer systems programmers.
I thought the trend started earlier.
I had a colleague, around 1984, point out that SYSPROGs were becoming PARMLIB
editors.
I recall when you had to assemble the PPT. Now it's just a
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:00 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: 25 reasons why hardware is still hot at IBM
I recall my supervisor telling me in the early
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010h.html#51 25 reasons why hardware is still hot
at IBM
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010h.html#56 25 reasons why hardware is still hot
at IBM
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010h.html#62 25 reasons why hardware is still hot
at IBM
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn
Training for z/OS related cours are decreasing.
Does that mean there are fewer mainframes?
Or, does that mean there are fewer managers willing to spend money on training?
Don't get me wrong.
I, regardless of the comments I've been making, DO believe that mainframes are
shrinking.
But, I'd like
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
Training for z/OS related courses are decreasing.
Does that mean there are fewer mainframes?
Or, does that mean there are fewer managers willing to spend money on
training?
Perhaps 'yes' for both questions. Providing proof? Sigh, very difficult. :-(
I, regardless of the
Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
What about South Africa - how many new customers do you know? How
many closed (migrated) mainframe shops do you know? What's the balance?
Anywhere between 20 to 200 companies countrywide hosting z/OS, OS/390 or
MVS systems. Actual number
On 27 Apr 2010 12:37:45 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
What about South Africa - how many new customers do you know? How
many closed (migrated) mainframe shops do you know? What's the balance?
Anywhere between 20 to 200
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.cawrote:
.Many of the applications currently running on z are
in need of serious overhaul or replacement...
Based on what? Do they work? If so, why do they need overhaul or
replacement?
That's a straight question.
On 23 Apr 2010 06:48:53 -0700, eamacn...@yahoo.ca (Ted MacNEIL) wrote:
We also know that the answer but the number of MIPS is growing is
smokescreen - number of MIPS on my desktop grew up significantly, but the
number of PCs remained the same.
The number of mainframes remain the same, or
On 23 Apr 2010 06:51:27 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
I bet the number of customers migrated off the mainframe is higher than
number of new customers.
Sucker bet!
Nobody will/has ever published the number of mainframes (or even mainframe
shops) in use.
First thing needed is for
Define more.
More Business.
The rest is just noise toys!
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET
Ted MacNEIL pisze:
Define more.
More Business.
The rest is just noise toys!
No. Even games are serious business, not to mention applications like
image processing, DTP, GPS and maps, CAD, etc.
IT business is not equal to financial data processing.
BTW: your statement I can do more
My point was: 10 years ago there were more mainframe shops than today.
Prove it!
Nobody has the stats as to how many exist.
Then, or now!
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
R.S. wrote:
That's why I described statement about MIPS growth as a smokescreen
masking sad truth: mainframe world is shrinking.
Yup. If a vendor says: I have sold X MIPS in year 2009 making this $999
million dollars, what does that means to me?
MIPS per box/machine/case
MIPS per CPU
MIPS per
A secretary used 10 years ago word processor, email program and spreadsheet.
Nowadays she use ...almost exactly same set of application, exactly the same
NUMBER of them: one. Number of MIPS in her PC grew up
significantly. Can we talk about growth IN THIS CONTEXT?
Yes. And no.
Is this a good
R.S. wrote:
sad truth: mainframe world is shrinking.
Please, give us some confirmed/trustworthy sources to confirm that statement.
Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
Well, if the Business is raw number crunching, then the PC may very well be
able to do more than the mainframe. When it comes to raw CPU power, PCs are
very competitive.
Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca 4/26/2010 11:09 AM
Define more.
More Business.
The rest is just noise toys!
-
Too
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
I have seen published financial statements with =ERR in cells.
Look at http://www.louisepryor.com/showTheme.do?theme=13
for (somewhat old but useful) discussions about accuracy of spreadsheets and
errors within financial statements in spreadsheets.
Problems discussed are
In a message dated 4/26/2010 10:59:04 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za writes:
Problems discussed are bad macros, bad pasting and handling big and small
numbers in a formula, etc...
One nice moral: Be very afraid when copying and pasting
We had a big stink
I don't think anyone but IBM can prove how many mainframes there are now and
how many there were 10 or 20 years ago. I can give you examples of my home
city of Milwaukee though.
Back in the mid eighties, when I was employed but looking for a job, there were
probably between 30 to 40 MVS
When it comes to raw CPU power, PCs are very competitive.
Yes. I've never disputed that.
But, when it comes to I/O ...
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:12:03 +, Eric Bielefeld eric-
ibmm...@wi.rr.com wrote:
Allis Chalmers was a HUGE manufacturing presence in Milwaukee for many
years. My Dad worked there for 30 years. I also knew some of the people
that worked in their datacenter. All gone now.
~
eamacn...@yahoo.ca (Ted MacNEIL) writes:
Yes. I've never disputed that.
But, when it comes to I/O ...
there can be very large difference between PCs configured for desktop
and PCs configured for servers. recent thread discussing that featuring
large number of channels ... may actually involve
I don't think anyone but IBM can prove how many bmainframes there are now and
how many there were 10 or 20 years ago.
I can give you examples of my home city of Milwaukee though.
I can give examples in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area), and it has not
diminished much.
So, each's experience is
So Toronto hasn't lost many of its mainframes? That's good to hear. I suspect
that my experiences in Milwaukee are similar to a lot more people's on this
list than yours are. Anyone care to comment?
You are correct in your statement that your (or my) personal experience doesn't
allow us to
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:06:34 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
When it comes to raw CPU power, PCs are very competitive.
Yes. I've never disputed that.
But, when it comes to I/O ...
Depends on the I/O. For TCP/IP, I find z painfully slow. Examples:
OS X (Intel)
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:07 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: 25 reasons why hardware is still hot at IBM
When it comes to raw CPU power, PCs are very
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:45:27 +, Eric Bielefeld wrote:
You are correct in your statement that your (or my) personal experience
doesn't allow us to make general comments. I do get the feeling that, mostly
from this list, that the number of mainframes is shrinking, at least across
the US,
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:52:53 -0500, McKown, John wrote:
I am totally certain (watch somebody prove me wrong) that it is impossible to
have shared DASD on a PC like we are used to.
Point of view. Think of a DASD control unit as a very dumb fileserver.
Or a fileserver as a very smart control
reasons why hardware is still hot at IBM
So Toronto hasn't lost many of its mainframes? That's good to hear. I suspect
that my experiences in Milwaukee are similar to a lot more people's on this
list than yours are. Anyone care to comment?
You are correct in your statement that your (or my
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 12:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: 25 reasons why hardware is still hot at IBM
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:52:53 -0500, McKown
@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: 25 reasons why hardware is still hot at IBM
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 12:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: 25 reasons why hardware
hardware is still hot
at IBM
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010h.html#56 25 reasons why hardware is still hot
at IBM
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010h.html#62 25 reasons why hardware is still hot
at IBM
way back when ... one of the austin engineers took some fiber technology
knocking around POK
-snip-
If a vendor says: I have sold X MIPS in year 2009 making this $999
million dollars, what does that means to me?
MIPS per box/machine/case
MIPS per CPU
MIPS per sale transaction(s) of some
Or if you have a
On 26 Apr 2010 13:11:21 -0700, rfocht...@ync.net (Rick Fochtman)
wrote:
I submit that MIPS is not a valid measurement, since it has no real
correlation with the amount of useful work accomplished by any machine.
One example is RISC machines. They have to simulate instructions that
non-RISC
W dniu 2010-04-26 17:50, Ted MacNEIL pisze:
A secretary used 10 years ago word processor, email program and spreadsheet.
Nowadays she use ...almost exactly same set of application, exactly the same
NUMBER of them: one. Number of MIPS in her PC grew up
significantly. Can we talk about growth
W dniu 2010-04-26 17:50, Elardus Engelbrecht pisze:
R.S. wrote:
sad truth: mainframe world is shrinking.
Please, give us some confirmed/trustworthy sources to confirm that statement.
Even IBM admits (I'VE SEEN IT SOMEWHERE) that number of mainframe
datacenters is not growing but quickly
W dniu 2010-04-26 18:52, McKown, John pisze:
[...]
I don't know the I/O capacity of the newest PC fibre I/O, but did find a Web site which says 4
GiB/Sec. But I'm relatively sure that there are fewer fibre HBAs in most servers than there are FICON
channels, the nearest z equivalent (I think),
, in some aspects
better than our. I think I feel what ancient Romans thought about the
barbarians.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010h.html#51 25 reasons why hardware is still hot
at IBM
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010h.html#56 25 reasons why hardware is still hot
at IBM
http://www.garlic.com
Although not a comprehensive list, just looking at the external IBM press
releases you can see both new mainframe customers as well as modernized and
new workloads being deployed on System z. There are also other new System
z mainframe customers not published. While these customers may not be
Even IBM admits (I'VE SEEN IT SOMEWHERE) that number of mainframe datacenters
is not growing but quickly explains it as effect of
consolidation.
Tell us where.
Or, consider a statement without substantiation what it's worth.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
Just found a post from DancingDinosaur on 26 April 2010 where he discusses
System z in Korea including BC Card and Dongbu Insurance,
In his blog, he quotes 40 new System z wins in 2009 with 9 new wins in
1Q2010 versus several mainframe losses as well.
2009 wasn’t the unmitigated disaster
John,
The Enterprise class Unix servers are supporting several hundred IO slots,
and with two port cards being the norm nowadays it would be quite easy to
configure a SUN M9000 with over 500 8Gb FCP Channels. (BTW FICON and FCP are
Gb not Gib).
Multipath for UNIX and Windows has been around on
To the point of TCO including administrative costs, it is interesting to
look at a recent Novell case study around Miami-Dade County. I've provided
some samples of the very interesting article which includes multiple
aspects of TCO.
http://www.novell.com/success/miami-dade-county.html
Like many things, Anton has obviously no idea about Singapore where most
cars are scrapped or sold to other countries when they are more than 10
years old...
Definitely the most inaccurate example one could use!
It is like somebody comparing a F-22 Raptor to a Ford Model T .. but
then again,
Anton, don't you think you are unfair ? Just a little ? Do you
honestly think System z technology compared to other is like comparing
F-22 to Ford Model T ? Or did you even mean all IBM servers ?
Do you think all IBM customers are unknowing/naive ? Or all mainframe
customers being unknowing/naive
Well, I don't work for IBM and I agree with you :-) I fear Anton has
some other Axe to grind
quote
Anton, don't you think you are unfair ? Just a little ? Do you
honestly think System z technology compared to other is like comparing
F-22 to Ford Model T ? Or did you even mean all IBM
Marian Gasparovic wrote:
But I see TCO studies that show how System z is competitive and how
customers can save money running on z instead of distributed.
I would like to see those TCO studies. Truth is there are a lot of
companies (big ones included) that are moving
off mainframes to
David Crayford pisze:
Marian Gasparovic wrote:
But I see TCO studies that show how System z is competitive and how
customers can save money running on z instead of distributed.
I would like to see those TCO studies. Truth is there are a lot of
companies (big ones included) that are moving
, April 23, 2010 6:55 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: 25 reasons why hardware is still hot at IBM
David Crayford pisze:
Marian Gasparovic wrote:
But I see TCO studies that show how System z is competitive and how
customers can save money running on z instead of distributed.
I would like
Richards, Robert B. pisze:
Bang! For passing biased opinions! :-)
TCO studies are not always commissioned with predicable conclusions. Lots are
done in-house.
In-house TCO studies can also be biased. Of course that general remark,
YMMV.
And if you have ever seen stupidity in action on TCO
Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
R.S.
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 7:40 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: 25 reasons why hardware is still hot at IBM
Richards, Robert B. pisze:
Bang! For passing biased opinions! :-)
TCO studies are not always commissioned
Richards, Robert B. pisze:
I bet the number of customers migrated off the mainframe is higher than number
of new customers.
And I bet that most of those decisions probably cost those companies MORE money
in the long term. Isn't management by magazine great? :-(
Again, the above does not
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:32:24 +0800, David Crayford wrote:
I would like to see those TCO studies. Truth is there are a lot of
companies (big ones included) that are moving
off mainframes to reduce the TCO. Those distributed systems come in
very big iron configurations and are
starting to match
I would like to see those TCO studies.
TCO is one of most political things out there.
One thing that is always missed is TCA.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
We also know that the answer but the number of MIPS is growing is
smokescreen - number of MIPS on my desktop grew up significantly, but the
number of PCs remained the same.
The number of mainframes remain the same, or shrink.
But, I can do more with my mainframe than you can do with your PC.
I bet the number of customers migrated off the mainframe is higher than
number of new customers.
Sucker bet!
Nobody will/has ever published the number of mainframes (or even mainframe
shops) in use.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
Ted,
I have to disagree. TCA is usually _the only_ part considered and that
is why you can see so many x86 servers there. They are cheap to buy,
so TCA is low. But administering many of them is different story,
which is covered in TCO.
Marian Gasparovic
IBM Slovakia
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:46
paulgboul...@aim.com (Paul Gilmartin) writes:
I don't understand what you see as sad. Do you consider it likewise
sad that in some respects the F-22 Raptor outperforms the Ford Model T?
(Well, not TCO, but for the F-22 TCO is not the primary objective.)
i periodically referenced that i
TCA is usually _the only_ part considered and that
is why you can see so many x86 servers there.
That I disagree with, because I've been involved in some studies.
They are cheap to buy,
so TCA is low.
Individually, they are cheap to buy.
But, when you need 1-3 for production, 1-2 for QA, 1 for
Ted MacNEIL pisze:
I bet the number of customers migrated off the mainframe is higher than number
of new customers.
Sucker bet!
Can you prove it?
Nobody will/has ever published the number of mainframes (or even mainframe
shops) in use.
Somebody observe world around. Noticed many shops
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:32:24 +0800, David Crayford wrote:
I would like to see those TCO studies. Truth is there are a lot of
companies (big ones included) that are moving
off mainframes to reduce the TCO. Those distributed systems come in
very big iron configurations
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:32:24 +0800, David Crayford wrote:
I would like to see those TCO studies. Truth is there are a lot of
companies (big ones included) that are moving
off mainframes to reduce the TCO. Those distributed systems come in
very big iron configurations
I submit that many of those TCO studies don't include the cost of personel and
the resources required to support that inflated staff.
You'll get absolutely no argument from me on that one, having done a few
studies, myself.
In general, if it doesn't support management's agenda, it won't be
Read this link...
http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?
option=com_contentview=articleid=32333:25-reasons-why-hardware-is-still-
hot-at-ibmcatid=86:computingItemid=64
or use this link to go to above URL...
http://tinyurl.com/2b7kbkp
or http://preview.tinyurl.com/2b7kbkp
Enjoy reading... ;-D
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
