Re: renamed to: Get users to stop saying AS/400

James,

An AS/400 is a server. OS/400 was the OS that has been virtualized, and
morphed into IBM i. If hardware changes are irrelevant, then why are you
calling our platform by the name of an old piece of hardware that is no
longer relevant? That makes no sense. Someone did come up with the
software to implement "the operating system formerly known as OS/400" - it
was IBM, and they named it IBM i, and it runs on completely new of
hardware called Power Systems.

Besides, what you knew as OS/400 and i5/OS has been somewhat modified in
current releases. Some of the functionality that provided hardware
independence is no longer in the OS, but in the virtualization software
that runs the OS.

Trevor

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:46 PM, James Lampert <jamesl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Trevor Perry wrote:

The need to promote IBM i to the users is not required. It is the
IMAGE of
the platform to the industry, to the community, to business, to
management

Yes, and the current image is that of a box whose manufacturer changes
its name more often than some people change their socks.

As far as the physical hardware is concerned, the AS/400 has *ALWAYS*
been a virtual machine. It has ALWAYS been implemented in software,
running on top of a lower-level processor, NEVER in hardware. Although
there may have been TALK of implementing a processor that actually
executed MI directly, that idea NEVER WENT BEYOND TALK, assuming it ever
got that far.

Hardware changes are completely irrelevant. An AS/400 is a box, ANY box,
that is set up to execute AS/400 software. Period. If someone came up
with the software to implement MI, NMI, Single Level Store, LIC, "the
operating system formerly known as OS/400," and so forth, on my beat-up
486 DOS-only notebook, then IT would, while running that software, be an
AS/400.

--
JHHL
--