|
I've been watching this discussion for a while now, and have participated in similar discussions in other forums. You folks running CISC machines who feel like you're being left behind (or rather "Going to be left behind" since you're really not yet except for a few minor bits here and there, such as in the RPG compiler) need to consider what you're really asking for. You say you want full equivalency between CISC and RISC releases for a period of several years. How long? And more importantly, HOW MUCH ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY FOR IT? That's right, dollars and cents! IBM doesn't think that customers staying on CISC would consider paying enough for new releases to cover the development outlays to do the work. Remember, V3R7 is the last V3 release, we _all_ get to pay again to go to V4. And when I think about the types of customers projected to still be on CISC by the beginning of 1999 (when the differences between V3R2 and the then-current _safe_ RISC release become dramatic), I tend to think they're right. >From a support standpoint, there is nothing obviously wrong with IBM's stand on V3R2 and CISC hardware support. They'll be doing it for a long time, just as they have with SSP-S/36 and CPF-S/38. Certainly free support will end eventually (2001, I'd guess right now), but for-pay support will be available as long as anyone is likely to _really_ need it. If it's enhancements you're looking for, you need to pay for them, and quite frankly I believe that you CISC folks would do better pushing IBM to make RISC upgrades cheaper than you will by pressuring for additional OS/400 upgrades for CISC. If you're really concerned that a large portion of the 300,000 machine installed base (NOT the 800,000 number that's been floating in this thread) is likely to jump to something else, you need to look at what the _real_ rate of IBM abandonment by S/36 and S/38 customers has been - I believe the figure is actually less than 25 percent, quite small compared to what some other vendors have experienced during product transitions. Indeed, the losses of /38 accounts have been quite a bit less than /36 accounts, and since the CISC to RISC transition is no more difficult, and actually quite a bit less expensive, than the /38 to /400 transition, I would expect the losses to be more comparable to that than the /36 to /400 transition. Just my $0.02, take it for what it's worth. Dave Shaw in Greenville, SC mailto: Dave_Shaw_at_GNP@compuserve.com The opinions expressed may not be my employer's unless I'm sufficiently persuasive... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.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 on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.