On 3/15/2013 1:32 PM, Winchester Terry wrote:
Since the article was referring to uptime, I was referring to that
aspect of Windows. If you wish to tout the fantastic uptime of
Windows that's your perogative.
Let me try one more time. Not to convince, but to explain why this is
apples and oranges, and why it's more important to build IBM i up than
it is to tear Windows down. Windows is here, used by many more millions
than IBM i. The opinions of those people are important to us in the
midrange arena because those are the very people we serve.
That universe of people has business problems they want to solve. They
don't buy Windows PCs because of uptime considerations. They buy
Windows machines because they can do things that handle their business
needs. There isn't a business problem for which '3700+ days of uptime
on a single box' is the answer.
Taking the opportunity to rag on 'Windoze' because it doesn't stay up
for 3700+ days is unhelpful because it pits Windows against a standard
for which Windows isn't bothering to compete. It's like reading a
Windows forum complain that the AS/400 can't run his carefully crafted
.NET code. It isn't meant to.
These sorts of comparisons don't help us to do what we MUST do in order
to survive - convince management to spend money on midrange servers and
software, including programmers(!) in order to solve their business
problems better than any other hardware/software combination. Because,
like it or not, we ARE being compared to cheap, commodity hardware and
free/cheap open source software. By shrugging off Windows, we are
denying ourselves the opportunity to proactively solve our end user
needs - which by definition include doing things the way the end user
wants. Which clearly includes Windows desktops.
If you also choose to run your business with it...I wish you
the best of luck :)
That's like saying 'Good luck with that horseless carriage idea.'
Windows servers, which handle billions, if not trillions of email
messages, file server requests, print requests and web pages every
single day are already running the business.
However, as a desktop system, yeah it's "ok" but my next home PC
will be a fully loaded Mac...based on a more stable *NIX system.
Not IBM i, because IBM i isn't intended for that space. Windows on
commodity hardware isn't intended for the high availability (3700+ days
of uptime) space, either. Which makes the unjust comparison an excuse
to bust on Redmond; something that happens a lot here. Think about it:
We're telling the rest of the organisation that the platform they've
chosen to run their web, email, print and file serving needs - Windows -
sucks. That their judgement is suspect. How does this help us try to
convince them to spend budget money on the midrange?
Of course, this forces me to bow down to another monopolistic
oriented company...but I digress...LOL
One could easily build a PC out of commodity parts and load an open
source OS like Linux or OpenBSD. Most people choose a commercial PC
with a commercial OS because of the convenience factor. This is an
important lesson for us in the midrange world. If we make things less
convenient for our end users, they will go elsewhere for their computing
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2013 by MIDRANGE dot 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 here. If you have questions about this, please contact