I understand (I think) what Trevor has been saying about his company's marketing IBM i applications. One does not, for example, usually refer to an Intel or AMD server but, rather, as a Windows or Linux server, although I have heard people refer to them as HP or Dell servers. That said, in our "family" we are used to referring to the system by its hardware name; probably because the hardware and OS have been tightly integrated ever since the System/3. It was, in the past, unnecessary to make a distinction between the HW and SW for this very reason.
I have gradually been weaning our users off of the term "AS/400" in favor of "System i5" or simply "i5". Asking them to log off of "OS/400," "i5/OS," or "IBM i" just doesn't *feel* right, even though we occasionally ask them to log off of the Windows server. Our owner/president frequently takes visitors on a tour of the facilities; the data center is a "must see" part of his tour. Some time ago I "enlightened" him that we no longer used an AS/400, but an i5. I even pointed out to him that, when he talked with colleagues in the business world that, when they said "Oh, you're running on that legacy system," he could just proudly say, "Heck no, we're running the business on the ultra-modern i5." Now, when he does tours, he points to his two i5's and how much better (and smaller) they are than the old (unplugged) model 720 "AS/400" sitting in the corner.
Point: Internally it is not worth the time and effort to educate users or the owner about the difference between hardware and software at this time. Or the various name changes. They love *their* i5. As long as my boss and I understand and can explain it to the owner and COO when we propose upgrades, then everything is OK. If, like Trevor, I was external and had to describe the system to neophytes (or Luddites), I would, I think, be taking the same, or at least similar, approach that he takes.
Jerry C. Adams
IBM System i Programmer/Analyst
B&W Wholesale Distributors
voice: 615-995-7024
fax: 615-995-1201
email: jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kurt Anderson
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 7:48 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: IBM investment in i
What, they renamed the OS again? Guess I wasn't paying attention and
only picked up that info from Tommy's post.
So much for "just call it the i5/OS because that won't change." I
tried.
Though generally when I talk to people who work with computers but not
with the "i" (no, not Apple's "i"), it goes a lot like this.
Them: "What do you work on?"
Me: "i5/OS."
"Huh?"
"System i?"
?
"iSeries?"
?
"As/400."
"Oh, well why didn't you say that to start with."
Kurt Anderson
Application Developer
Highsmith Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Tommy.Holden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 11:48 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: IBM investment in i
M$ has a lock on the *PC* market...not in the business *main* processing
market. that's still where they are gaining a foothold but haven't
quite made it yet. so yes, we as a community *AND* IBM *AND* BPs need
to promote the OS. with the new name IBM i, it may even be easier to do
so.
CIOs and CTOs tend to enjoy adding "new" technologies to their
infrastructure...just because it's "new" and therefore *must* be
innovative and "cool". So folks let's put on our party hats and *DON'T*
mention "It's OS/400 (or i5/OS) with a new name" but rather "hey check
out this new OS...it's called IBM i".
Thanks,
Tommy Holden
From:
"Steve Richter" <stephenrichter@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
"Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
05/07/2008 11:39 AM
Subject:
Re: IBM investment in i
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Booth Martin <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Recently I read Tom Watson Jr's book about IBM and his dad, T J
Watson.
IBM became great because T J Watson believed in sales. Everything he
and therefore IBM did was driven by a desire for sales. Today's IBM
is a far cry from what T J demanded.
profits are sky high at IBM. I think they figure that operating systems
and run time frameworks are not as profitable as middleware and end user
applications. They also dont want to compete where Microsoft is
strongest - operating systems, frameworks, languages.
-Steve
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
midrange.com
