RE: BPCS 3.0 Questions -- BPCS-L

Mark and Ruth,
(comments inserted)

> ----------
> From:
> Clark@mail.nexgeninfo.com[SMTP:Clark@mail.nexgeninfo.com]
> Sent:         Wednesday, May 06, 1998 10:48 AM
> To:   BPCS-L@midrange.com
> Subject:      RE: BPCS 3.0 Questions
> 
> 
> Mark wrote (snipped):
> 
> >I've just started at a company that is using a heavily
> >modified version of BPCS 3.0 on the AS/400.
> >They have not carried on the software maintenance
> >for years. My first task here is to bring the software
> >up to Y2K compliance.
> 
> >I've encountered some non-observable programs (of
> >course, also without source.)  They begin with a
> >call to SYS900, which calls some programs in the
> >SYS65x series. I understand that these are probably
> >used for security and license purposes. What I need
> >to know is how these programs will react on 1/1/2000,
> >and secondly, if/when we move to RISC, what are our
> >options (other than paying big $$$ to SSA?)
> 
# Correct these are for security and licensing.
If/when you move to RISC you will need RISC versions of these programs.

> First of all, if you move to a RISC box you will most likely
> have to pay an upgrade fee to SSA because BPCS license
> fees are tied to the model number of your AS/400.  I don't
> know if you'll be required to pay maintenance fees, though.
> (Anyone want to chime in with an answer?)  Also, you will
> need to get from SSA the RISC versions of the SYS programs
> if you move to a RISC box.
> 
# Not always, SSA also uses "user based" licensing. If you have
model/feature code based licensing then the normal RISC upgrade
paths tend to cost allot because SSA supposedly bases prices 
roughly on CPW. And a move to RISC usually involves a nice jump
in CPW performance. If you have User Based licensing then there
shouldn't be a charge for moving to a RISC box (maybe media).
Either way maintenance fees are a separate issue. With SSA
ANYTHING can be negotiated, you do not need maintenance
to go to RISC.


> I'm not positive from reading your post, but it sounds like
> you're going to stay on V3.0 and make it Y2K compliant.
> Since your system is heavily modified, converting is definitely
> the best decision--there's not enough time to upgrade to
> another version or go to another package if you're just starting
> now.  Regarding the SYS900 and SYS65x programs, your
> potential for date-related problems is directly dependent on
> the approach you take for century conversion.  Almost all of
> the Y2K tools out there will completely fail when dealing with
> those BPCS programs, and the workaround is tremendously
> time-consuming, because you can't get the source for those
> SYS programs.
> 
#  I disagree, there is nothing that special about these programs
that any decent Y2K tool couldn't handle.

> That's a good example of why it's so important to use a Y2K
> solution that was specifically designed for BPCS.  (full disclosure--
> I work for Nexgen, makers of Focus/2000.)  Focus/2000 knows
> about all of the BPCS idiosyncracies, so it works fine with those
> SYS programs, without interfering with the SSA security.
> 
#  To say the least, this is debatable. Choosing a tool that was
designed
to address a specific application may increase efficiencies and decrease
the time and resources needed to fix the application. But, there are
many
variable in every situation including number of modules being used,
amount of modification done, other systems interfaced with, current
licensing, etc.

# -steve cotes
# -cotess@data-io.com

>  --Ruth Clark
> Nexgen
> 
+---
| This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
+---