RE: WHY would I run Windows on my iSeries?

jt,

I think that it is a double-edged sword and sensible people could go
either way.  Some would argue for an extremely robust backup solution
with 7x24 maintenance, and then live with the very infrequent downtime.
Others could argue for multiple, but less expensive solutions.
Philosophically, I could go either way.  Those in the midrange
community, probably tend towards the first case.

In this particular situation, in which we are considering running
Windows and the iSeries in the same shop, I would not agree with your
point about the payroll dollars.  Just because Windows might be running
on an inboard processor does not negate the need for high-end Windows
expertise within an organization.  Just because the backup could be
performed on iSeries hardware would not eliminate that.  Windows is
tricky and probably requires a higher level of expertise than the
iSeries to achieve a moderate level of stability.

Regards,
Andy

> Andy,
>
> I tend to agree with your first instincts on this one.  Especially if
Brad
> comes out with moderately priced redundant backup.
>
> Here's the thing:  once you add another platform, to reduce the risk
of
> single-point-of-failure, you're gonna pay for the added complexity in
> payroll dollars.  So, IMV, the "theoretical sense (e.g. no budget
> concerns)"
> flies out the windoze, either way...;-)
>
> jt
> |
> | Your point is well taken, mine was poorly expressed and not very
sound.
> | Sometimes it seems like 'having one less thing to break' would be a
good
> | thing; in a theoretical sense (e.g. no budget concerns) redundancy
would
> | outweigh the drawbacks of complexity.
> |
> | Thanks for the correction.
> | Andy Nolen-Parkhouse