Re: FW: OS/400 upgrades for CISC

Bob (and, indirectly, Dave)

In a message dated 97-04-18 19:30:46 EDT, you write:

> I am forwarding to all of you an e-mail that I sent to Mr. Zeitler back in 
>  March.  As was the case with Dave Mahadevan, I received a reply from
Wynndel 
>  Watts.  I'd post the response here but there's no sense in taking up the 
>  space (besides which I've since deleted it) - you've already seen it.  The

>  response that I received back was 100%, word for word, IDENTICAL to the 
>  response that Dave received to his e-mail (hmmm ... perhaps Wynndel Watts
is 
>  an autobot?).  It is very difficult to believe that IBM takes this issue 
>  seriously when their response is to send a 'canned' reply.  I'm curious
... 
>  has anyone else received the same canned response that Dave and I have? 
>   Show of hands?

Like I told Dave when he posted this, CISC is dead whether you like it or
not.  You don't like or agree with it, I don't like or agree with it, but
this is IBM's direction.  All I can say is be glad that you're
software-obsolete rather than hardware-obsolete like the /36'ers, and that
I'm happy IBM is keeping the platform current.

The CISC platform is EIGHT years old, and I'm suprised that IBM has come up
with such an elegant exit for it.  The upgrade from S/36 to the AS/400 was
MUCH more difficult (even to the /36 environment) than is the upgrade from
CISC to RISC.  Part of the problem with the /36 upgrade was that SSP (the
36's operating system) supported functions from the S/34 and even the S/3
that had to be excised when you were upgrading.  CISC to RISC does not have
such a problem.

Bob, I don't know about your and Dave's environments, but I can cite 30+
sites that have AS/400's here.  All but 5 of those 30+ sites have gone less
than 4 years without upgrading their processor, and those 5 need to but were
too cheap to do it.  Business increase and need for added functionality
dictated an upgrade.  So what if the latest processor upgrade requires a
little software maintenance on the side?  You're probably going to need it
anyhow.

Then again you CAN stubbornly hold out like all of the /36'ers and, in
another eight years, IBM will come out with an Advanced/CISC.  This is NOT
meant as a slam, I just wonder what the big deal is.  My customers average a
processor upgrade every 1-2 years -- mainly due to business increases, a
desire for more detailed history online, or finally admitting that the
"acceptable" response times that they spec'd weren't all that acceptable.
 Many of the new features that you want are dictated by the hardware, so why
fight so hard to stay on CISC?  Just curious...

Regards!

Dean Asmussen
Enterprise Systems Consulting, Inc.
Fuquay-Varina, NC  USA
E-Mail:  DAsmussen@AOL.COM

"There is no abstract art.  You must always start with something." -- Pablo
Picasso
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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 MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify            *
* 'unsubscribe MIDRANGE-L' in the body of your message.  Questions      *
* should be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *