re: CISC upgrades

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   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *