RE: Where is IBM? -- MIDRANGE-L

> 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