Re: Why NOT the 400?

["Steve Landess" <steve_landess@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Don wrote:
> One simple work:  SERVICES
> The 400 is too good of a box.  The 400 is so good you can install and
> basically forget it.
> You CAN NOT do that with: unix, linux, windows(Endorsed by IBM for
> Business)....

You're exactly right, Don...

For several years now, IBM has made more revenue from services than any
other sector of their business.

When I was working as a consultant at a major office-supply chain (based in
southern Florida) in 1995, IBM had come in and told them that instead of the
several AS/400's they were using to run their divisions they needed an IBM
mainframe and new application software to replace ALL of their current
systems.

A huge effort ensued, and I don't know how it turned out.  I think they
spent a LOT of money on the project.  I'm not sure if the IS director
survived the project.  You can be assured that IBM made huge revenues both
on hardware and services from that account.

For much of the 90's, IBM consultants were somewhat of a permanent fixture
at one of my former clients in Austin, having developed the "imaging system
project that never ends" using IBM's imaging software on the AS/400 with
OS/2-based PC clients.  It worked, I think, but it was obsolete (at least
the technology was) before it was rolled out to the end users.

Steve Landess
Austin, Texas
(512) 423-0935