Does this article indicate how they were using the AS/400s? I can see where 
using an AS/400 like a PC could become an expensive environment. Somewhat like 
driving your little league team to the game in a BMW.... :O  Lots of neat bells 
and whistles (GUI, Video, etc.) but not really suited to the task of efficiently
transporting a large number of kids in a reliable and timely fashion. The 
effective application of any technology is directly related to its 
implementation. I don't feel that NT is ever going to be as reliable as the 
AS/400 for one primary reason.  With the open device and hardware reference 
standards, NT has to provide service to a whole range of hardware that may or 
may not conform to NT's standards. Hardware and driver conflict are common and 
difficult to diagnose. The AS/400 and it's technology is highly optimized and 
integrated, with a controlled hardware standard (propriatary design) (sp?) that 
reduces resource conflicts and/or buggy device drivers.

BTW, to claim a system deficient because it does not support technology that 
didn't even exist at the time of its development/life cycle is simply 
ridiculous, IMHO. 

Eric A DeLong

_________________________ Reply Separator ____________________________
Subject: RE: System/34 
Author:  < > at INTERNET
Date:    2/20/98 10:56 PM

** Reply to note from "Donald L. Schenck" <> Fri, 20 Feb 
1998 20:05:29 -0500
> What a joke. 
> Ran a lot of GUI stuff on that 34, eh? Oh ... and video ... audio .. and,  
> of course, supported 200 users? Yeah. And what about that Internet server  
> on that S/34?  Can't forget that. 
> Sheesh ... if you want to run an NT Server like a S/34, it'll EASILY do  
> 24x7. So will Novell ... Linux ... even DOS for crying out loud. 
> Let's see here (looking at front page of InfoWorld) ... hmmmm ... this  
> major publishing company is saving $700,000 EVERY YEAR by dumping their  
> AS/400's for NT?? Hmmmm... 
> Different needs require different OS'es. NT's not for everything ... but  
> neither is OS/400. 
Hi Don. 
When I ran a System/34 I had about a dozen users (I believe I had enough 
twinax addresses for 32 users, and a comm line that would have let me go 
beyond that, I just didn't have the need) and a few printers. The system 
was "full blown" with 256k and 256Mb of disk. It ran all day, every day 
without fail. When we moved the system, the moving company left it standing 
up on end in the rain while they tried to find out where the freight 
elevator was. After drying, it went on running.
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. 
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. 
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.
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. 
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? ;-)
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. 
Also, in very few cases was downtime quantified and reported against the 
conversion cost. Some costs of down time are difficult to quantify, like 
the unhappiness of a salaried employee or one not allowed to report 
overtime hours who had to work extra time to catch up for a failed network. 
When the unhappy employee quits, does this count as additional savings? ;-)
In this light, it is possible that the $700,000 annual figure is an over 
estimate. Maybe it makes a good story, though. Please don't take this to 
means that I don't see it as possible! I sure do see it as viable that 
there are less expensive systems than the AS/400, depending on how you 
price reliability. 
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?
> Peace, 
> -- Don
Chris Rehm
How often can you afford to be unexpectedly out of business? 
Get an AS/400.
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to "".
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to 
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: 

| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to "".
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:

This thread ...

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