× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: Re: AS/400 vs PC as a server
  • From: "James W. Kilgore" <qappdsn@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 15:02:53 -0700
  • Organization: Progressive Data Systems, Inc.

Rich Brearley wrote:
> 
> I was talking to an associate yesterday on the life of midrange
> computers.  His view was that the PCS will take over the
> industry and there will be no use for Midrange or Mainframes.

<snip>
> 
> I would like to open a discussion on this so that I can become
> more knowledgeable.

On a Friday?! :-)

You can end any "arguement" by agreeing that their is the right tool for
the right job.
I don't hang pictures with a sledge hammer.  All servers have their
place in the world and can peacfully coexist.

The best way I've used to determine fit is from the Micro$oft statement
that the NT server is 95% reliable.  Just ask what 5% (unannounced) you
want to have your system down.  For some, it's perfectly OK to have
their system down just about any time it feels like it.  The recovery
time is within their operating environment comfort zone and would not
cost them a whole lot of lost productivity, customer satisfaction or
real money.

Others (like union companies) who have to pay their employees overtime
if they have to wait for their paychecks have their comfort zone a
little higher on the bar.  It doesn't take but one occurance per year,
for 250 union workers paid $18/hr waiting one hour for a pay check that
an NT server no longer looks "inexpensive".

Not to mention the cost per hour of an idle manufacturing plant because
production orders can't reach the floor or automated equipment can't
receive their schedule, and on, and on, and on.

I've used a trucking analogy on this list before, so I hope you can
stand another:  You COULD commute to work in an 18 wheeler.  Not very
cost effective.  You COULD deliver all of your goods, coast to coast,
with utility sport trucks.  Again, not very cost effective.  Anyone who
thinks that it's and either/or situation (like your friend just might)
has decided that all goods will be delivered by utility sport trucks in
the future and that the 18 wheelers are going to die a slow death. ;-)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This is the Midrange System Mailing List!  To submit a new message,   *
* send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe from     *
* this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify            *
* 'unsubscribe MIDRANGE-L' in the body of your message.  Questions      *
* should be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.