Re: FW: OS/400 upgrades for CISC -- MIDRANGE-L

Dave,

In a message dated 97-04-21 14:50:58 EDT, you write:

> CISC is not gone.  There is no reason why CISC cannot run RISC V3R7 type
>  software.  CISC is not a 286 in a Pentium world.  IBM has gone ahead and
>  brainwashed a lot of people that RISC is the only way to go.  If
>  everybody starts upgrading at the drop of the hat to the latest
>  hardware, IBM will be the richest company in the world, and the
>  consumers will be paying through it past Y2K :-)  

No, there is no reason CISC cannot run V3R7 type software.  But in order for
the full package to work (new hardware/software soon to be released and still
on the drawing board), you need the RISC processor.  It's easier for IBM to
support the fully-integrated package.  Do you REALLY want IBM support to get
WORSE:-)?

>  I am sorry I am unable to convince you guys of the necessity of the
>  upgrades on V3R2.  But you guys (Neil, Chris, John) all have a point and
>  I get it loud and clear.

I see your points as well.  The problem is that IBM would have to do support
for two diverse platforms with the same name -- and probably end up not doing
either one very well.  My genuine concern for CISC users is when will IBM
drop support for V3R2?  If they follow form, May of next year will be the
date.  If THAT happens, I would be that your 800,000 systems (even if reduced
to 500,000 at that point, which would be an AMBITIOUS upgrade schedule) would
start carrying some weight!

>  end of my pathetic soapbox.

Hardly pathetic.  One of the reasons that the /36 is still around is that the
hardware is plentiful, cheap, and it worked.  CISC boxes are going to be
plentiful for some time, and most of them are already cheap (someone called
me just yesterday with a C10 w/32Mb of memory and 2Gb disk for under $1K US).
 Don't forget that there are more installed CISC boxes than the /36 and /38
combined!

I understand your position, it's just that most of my clients have already
"topped out" on the 320 and are FORCED to move to RISC anyhow.  Like the
performance of the /36 environment in the "early days", IBM has oversold the
"right sizing" effort on the CISC and can correct it only with the RISC box
(sort of like the days when they were replacing B's and C's with D's and E's
for free for those in 36/E -- hey, now THERE's a thought!).

Don't give up on your cause, just garner support here and find out where to
direct it.  Heck, I'll help.  I just don't want anyone staking their career
on CISC -- I saw how long it took to get results for the S/36!

Regards!

Dean Asmussen
Enterprise Systems Consulting, Inc.
Fuquay-Varina, NC  USA
E-Mail:  DAsmussen@AOL.COM

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." --
Sir Winston Churchill
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This is the Midrange System Mailing List!  To submit a new message,   *
* send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe from     *
* this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify            *
* 'unsubscribe MIDRANGE-L' in the body of your message.  Questions      *
* should be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *