× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



> From: Hans Boldt
>
> Well, that's a red herring, isn't it? How many desktop systems
> really need to handle terabyte files locally? That's what mainframes
> are for!

Tell that to Walden.

> Less obvious since it's only an issue on upgrade. Also a red herring
> since Windows has never been a shining example of ease of upgrade.

Tell that to Walden.  <grin>

The discussion here is whether Windows is a suitable replacement for OS/400
(I think this is chapter 5 of that discussion between Walden and I
<chuckle>).  My point is that OS/400 is far better suited for the types of
big, enterprise level stuff we're talking about here.  This all came about
because of Walden's slightly tongue-in-cheek remark that Windows supports
more memory than IBM, inevitably leading to my retort.


> But yes, for legacy applications, if your pointers have to be large
> to begin with, it does make it easier to scale up applications to
> monolithic proportions. In other words, you pay a penalty in advance
> for the prospect of easier upgrades in the future.

This to me is truly a red herring.  What penalty?  More memory?  Hardly a
price to pay for easier upgrades.  Trust me on this, Hans.  From an
application vendor's standpoint, I'll be much happier to have to sell a few
extra MB of RAM than telling my client it's a two man-week job to upgrade.


> Then again, if your application is written in an interpreted
> language like Python, then the word size doesn't matter at all. The
> porting of programs in such languages to different machines is very
> painless. (You *knew* I had to get a Python reference in somehow!)

OWWWWWWWW!  I spit sodapop out my nose, Hans!  <ROFL>


> My point is just that, based on my own experience within IBM, I
> think the quality of the AS/400 and iSeries can be explained by
> factors other than the single level store. For example, Rochester's
> strict project management regimen, and a zealous attitude towards
> testing.

This is certainly a hugely valid point.  Advantage Boldt.  <grin>


> Yes, single level store offers good stability and security. But you
> can (and do) get that in conventional architectures as well. You
> have to balance the advantages with the disadvantages, such as the
> cost of the higher resource requirements, to get the complete picture.
>
> In other words, the technology is interesting in a theoretical
> sense. But in a practical sense, no one really cares why the iSeries
> is a good machine. What matters is that it is.

Once again, this WAS a theoretical discussion about whether Windows is a
suitable replacement for OS/400.  Walden and I do this every couple of
months or so, just to keep the concepts clear in everyone's mind <grin>.

Thanks, though, for some truly enlightening insights into this from both a
compiler-design standpoint, and an IBM policies standpoint, both areas in
which you are eminently more qualified than I.

Joe


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

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.