Re: OS/400 topics -- MIDRANGE-L

Agreed, also when the naming goes from one thing to something else, thecontent is also something else.

It would be like having Widows 3.0 or 3.11 or XP and saying it is the samething except only the name got changed. A heck of a lot more than the namegot changed.


So it is with IBM with a few other differences from the Microsoft environment.

* When we go from version whatever to whatever + 1, we get lots and lotsof enhancements, without bloating what is needed to run the thing ... ohsometimes there are needs to support features not there before, but theincreased need for hardware is microscopic compared to what is needed fromversion whatever to the next one on any other platform.

* If we have something that works on whatever, it still works on whatever +1, unless IBM has given us notice 6 months or more in advance what they arewithdrawing support for, and also some kind of migration path to get thatonto something else.

* When we move to the next whatever, the end users get to run all the sameapplications they were running before, the same way. The computerdepartment may need to do a conversion so files and reports support newcapabilities, but the effect of this is transparent to any users who arenot using the new capabilities. Usually the first the users realize therehas been an upgrade is when they wonder why tasks are running so much faster.

* You may have noticed that Microsoft just dropped support for Windows 98which STILL needs lots of patches for it to work right. When IBM dropssupport for some version, that version has been working perfectly for atleast a year, with no further need for support.The reason why we move from one version to next on IBM is because we needthe new features.The reason why we do so on other platforms is because the new version isnot broken as badly as the earlier ones.

Hi:

The fine points, as I understand them, are these:

Regardless of the marketing department name of the month, hardware is
called what IBM called it when they built it. We are running an

        AS/400e Series

with a blue "e." It is not an "i Series," and it is not a "Series i," nor
will it ever be either.

The operating system is called what IBM called it when they released the
version in question. We are running:

        OS/400 Version 5 Release 2

If we upgrade one level (the highest we can go on our Model 720) we will
be running:

        i5/OS Version 5 Release 3

And if you are sure I am confused, I will readily agree even if I'm not
sure I'm wrong....

Darrell

Darrell A. Martin  -  754-2187
Manager, Computer Operations
dmartin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



David Gibbs <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
06/30/2006 06:33 PM
Please respond to
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
Re: OS/400 topics






Bruce Barrett wrote:
> Apple used to run their business on the iSeries and they still may.

Not to draw too fine a point, but ... they ran on an AS/400, not an
iSeries.

I work with one if their former programmers (AS/400 programmers, that is).

david







This e-mail, including attachments, may contain information that is
confidential and/or proprietary, and may only be used by the person to
whom this email is addressed. If the recipient of this e-mail is not the
intended recipient or an authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is
prohibited. If this e-mail has been delivered to you in error, please
notify the sender by replying to this message and deleting this e-mail
immediately.
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.