Re: AS/400 vs. IBM i

On 10/23/19 1:36 PM, James H. H. Lampert wrote:

On 10/23/19 10:14 AM, DrFranken wrote:

To me it is this one thing: When others hear you say "IBM i" or "Power Systems" they expect you to be up to date with the current technology of the machine. To be able to leverage it for success now and forward.

I'm afraid I have to differ a bit.

Micros****** has been using the same name for its flagship OS since before it was an actual OS (and was only a UI and protected mode extension for DOS). Even though the present version of WinDoze is not even remotely like WinDoze 286.

Likewise, Apple has been calling its flagship computer line "Macintosh" since the days when it was a 68000-based smaller, cheaper successor to its failed "Lisa," even though its original OS was first ported from 68xxx architecture to PowerPC architecture, then completely replaced by a BSD fork, which was then, in turn, ported to x86 architecture, and there probably isn't a single program written for the original Mac 128 that can run on any Mac made in the past decade or more. And it's been calling its OS "MacOS" ever since MacOS 8.0 replaced "System 7."

---

Microsoft does NOT use the same name for each successive operating system. Prefaced with Microsoft, yes, but it's 95, 2000, 2007, windows 10...

I have a Mac, aka Macintosh. (Who calls it that anymore in common parlance.

I have had a succession of a parade of operating systems with different names, that come from geological places in California. My operating system is High Sierra. Mac users are not ignorant of this difference. It's important when it's time to download and for some software.

You know, like it's a Power system and IBM i 7.2 operating system. That's what I work on..