Re: Lower End AS/400s

[Dr Syd Nicholson <sydnic@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I have experienced this many times. The up front cost of the iSeries
seems to be expensive.

On the other hand the iSeries does not need an army of technicians to
keep it happy, to change its diaper every time it hiccups. In the longer
term, the iSeries is a much cheaper option. Windows servers possibly the
most expensive. The cost is not just the hardware, or the software, but
in the cost of additional support staff, disruption to business when
things go wrong, etc, etc.

With the increased integration built into OS/400, the iSeries is many
servers in one allowing a degree of  business and application
integration that is second to none.

When comparing costs, many people only see the prices of the
hardware/software and can't see beyond it. A true review should also
include all the other ancillary costs as well (eg. staffing, training,
staff turn over, downtime, etc).

Perhaps you could persuade your 'strategists' to look at a second hand
machine. I use a second hand 270 and a second hand 720, all obtained at
very respectable prices.

Syd Nicholson



Dan Rasch wrote:

> Just got back from one of those 'strategic' meetings, and learned why
> the company is migrating away from the AS/400.  The reason is the
> price of an entry model has become prohibitive.  We were using the
> machines as a combination server/processor, and the combination of
> only supporting the last two releases (with the required hardware
> upgrades to support these releases) has priced the AS/400 out the back
> door.
>
> Whatever happened to Alan Alda's water pail and supporting customers
> from the tiniest seedlings to a forest of giant Redwoods?  Why does IBM
> think the AS/400 has to be the next generation of mainframes?
>
> Does anyone have similar experiences, or is this a perception thing?
>
> Couseling is in session.  You may approach the bench.......