• Subject: RE: System/34
  • From: "Donald L. Schenck" <dschenck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 09:46:40 -0500

It never crashed. I used get to so enthused I would launch (evoke) jobs
into the system until I had the system 4000% (four thousand percent)
overloaded and the S/34 would hold them all and tell me to release the ones
I was serious about.

The computer in my car has never crashed; that makes it a better OS than 

YES! ... for automobile systems management! But not for serving a network.

My point EXACTLY! I DID say, "different needs require different OS's".

Because of that type of performance, IBM, nor anyone interested in
defending IBM for whatever reason, never had to come to me and make some
excuse about why it was okay for the system to crash. Unfortunately, NT
users have never had the same experience.

Don't say "NEVER". I seem to remember getting PTF's for our System/34 to 
fix problems, including system hangs. NO OS's is bug-free.

So that puts you in the unfortunate position of trying to justify why NT is
a better product that a twenty year old system. I submit to you, Don, that
if NT were any good you would not feel compelled to defend it's failures.

Wrong. I'm not being "put" into ANY position.
I'm NOT defending NT's failures. I'm saying you can't POSSIBLY be serious 
to compare or even PREFER the System/34 over an NT Server box???  If so ... 
wow ...

"Let's run our 400-user network from our System/34. Yeah!"

I have not read the article you mention. It may indeed be true (I am not
questioning your honesty, but rather the accuracy of reporting). I would
guess that there could be a couple of industries which might see better
value with a more graphic system and publishing is one of them.

A pretty reasonable assumption, but I was surprised to read that it WASN'T 
a graphics application. They are using the NT Server system with 
MickeySoft's SQL Server for database querying.

And I WAS WRONG! It was NOT on the cover; the headline was. The article is 
on page 84 of the February 9, 1998 issue (Volume 20, issue 6) of InfoWorld, 
entitled "Cost drives HarperCollins to a new platform", by Blaise Zerega.

However, I also know that the AS/400 has been shown to be less expensive
than NT, so the fact that one business would find a way to save a few bucks
doesn't really affect the overall value of the AS/400 in my eyes. Value, is
more than just low cost. My company could save a fortune if they would
simply fire half the staff. I wonder why they don't? ;-)

I've read the same reports, and after reading the fine print I'm many times 
disappointed. The tests seemed biased to me. Then again ... ANY test can 
seem bias.

You make a good point, and yes ... time will tell in the case of 
HarperCollins. But in an $11 BILLION company, SOMEBODY has put his butt on 
the line and is trusting NT? Either forward-thinking or crazy! <g>

For your own information, though, consider that some businesses have in the
past reported savings when going to Lan (remember when Novell was the
AS/400 killer?) only to discover later that the money they thought they
were saving was simply being spent in new areas that were not tabulated
against MIS costs. As an example, a company would report a hardware
investment savings but would fail to note that now one departmental
employee's salary was consumed in keeping the lan active for that
department. The employee's salary was still reported against the
departmental payroll expense.

Of course I know this. We can go back and forth all day, citing examples in 
our favor.

My points remain:

1. The S/34 was NO MATCH for NT.
2. Different needs require different OS's.

In my case, when it is time for me to choose my pacemaker, I don't think I
will let savings be my guide. Will you be happy to let your pacemaker
manufacturer give you the excuses of NT? or would you rather have the
reliability of even the lowly System/34?

Isn't the Chicago Stock Exchange run on NT systems???  Why yes ... it is. 
That is, 80 percent of the automated trading is (InfoWorld, February 16, 
1998, page 81, "Chicago Stock Exchange standardizes on NT".

They shoulda gone with a System/34 ... obviously <g>.

>From that article: "We haven't had a trading system failure in 12 months 
vs. a previous track record of three or four per year," Randich says of 
NT's reliability.

(the previous platform was Unix)


And the System/34 is a JOKE compared to NT!

Come on gang ... don't fight NT or Linux ... learn ... grow ... and use 
them where appropriate. I've NEVER slammed OS/400. NEVER. A client of mine 
-- a Credit Union -- is running a small AS/400 and doesn't EVER have a 
problem. And guess what? They have an NT server and don't have problems 
with that either.


-- Don

| 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 MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com

This thread ...

Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page