Re: FW: OS/400 upgrades for CISC -- MIDRANGE-L

John, for the most part I agree with your position. I also understand where
Dave is coming from. The protection on investment though is a mirky issue.
First there was the S/38 to AS/400 investment, then V1 to V2, then V2 to
V3, CISC to RISC, V3 to V4..... These upgrades (more money) are happening
at such a fast pace, that alot of companies are becoming concerned. I am
really curious about the numbers of CISC boxes compared to RISC boxes and
how soon they will convert. There is already a gap between CISC and RISC
and I expect it to get wider. I also suspect that there will be a large
base of CISC machines for a while at least.

Joe Teff
QDS
Bloomington, MN
----------
> >The point I am trying to make to all the
> >people with the shiny black boxes is the gray boxes will remain there
> >and if the manufacturer doesnt feel like supporting it, they will do a
> >cost benefit analysis and may move (could be RISC or nowadays it points
> >to NT !).
> 
> Dave you have got to be kidding.   If I'm using a software package on the
400 to
> run my business,
>  I'm going to the RISC box.    Even if I'm buying for the first time with
no
> prior software running , there is still good reasons to go to the RISC
box(in
> light of total ownership cost, and Neils forwarding of the RPMark95 stats
etc.
> etc.). 
> 
> What conscience do you think WinTel has about 16 bit apps having to be
rewritten
> and re-bought to take advantage of 32 bit technology?    If Microsoft was
in
> this position what do you think he would do?
> 
> I think Chris has a point when he said  { I don't think the numbers are
all that
> relevant. After all, I would guess that there are more 486s installed
than
> Pentiums, but that wouldn't stop me from calling the 486 "dead". } 
> 
> Do you think that Windoz 3.1 should still be supported by Microsquash ? 
They
> didn't even fix the bugs when it WAS supported(Thats right they were
> undocumented Features).
> 
> Going along with the NT "threat" idea for a moment,  I am personally very
happy
> that IBM is spending every dime & every developer to make V4Rx the best
yet,
> and that It's Java(etc,etc)  compliant and that it will really SCREAM
> (RPMark95).  And I own a CISC box.   The future of the AS/400  is VERY
VERY 
> important to me.   That future is NOT CISC period.   I'm just happy that
I have
> a very easy migration path. 
> 
>  Remember 80 - 88 was the SYS/38,   88-97 was CISC,   97-?? is RISC  and
in
> each case it was a Save/Restore.   I think HP would have liked that when
moving
> their software base to 64 bit.  and DEC would have loved to have moved
PDP-11's > that easily onward. 
> 
> Not having a migration path to a Bigger/Faster/Better  future would have
been a
> problem.  V3R2 is very stable, just stay on it as long as you like.  But
most
> AS/400 customers , I think,  if givin a choice wouldn't want IBM to make
> everything on V3R7(V4R1) backward compatable to V3R2.  They  would rather
> have the limited engineering talent & development dollars spent on the
Future
> and not the past.
> 
> BUT  Thats just my opinion.   I'm probably wrong as usual.  
> 
> John P. Carr   CDP
> EdgeTech Inc.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *