Re: FW: OS/400 upgrades for CISC

DAsmussen@aol.com wrote:
> 
> 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

Hey - I'm sure someone somewhere is still holding out for 
more DASD on a S/34  (& Client Access/34 with ODBC support)
And I just KNOW there must be a way to provide a GUI on a 5250 terminal.

         ;-)


-- 
...Neil Palmer                                      AS/400~~~~~      
...Technical Specialist             ____________          ___  ~     
...NxTrend Technology - Canada      |OOOOOOOOOO| ________  o|__||=   
...Markham, Ontario, Canada         |__________|_|______|_|______)   
...Phone: (905) 731-9000  x238       oo      oo   oo  oo   OOOo=o\   
...e-mail: neil@systemetrix.ca    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *