Re: Is DB2/400 still the correct terminology fo DB2 on the IBM i? -- MIDRANGE-L

> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Justin Dearing <zippy1981@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
>
> There is absolutely, positively no chance of dislodging the "AS/400"
> terminology where I work. Zero. None. It simply cannot be done. You
> would have a much easier time moving the entire Sahara desert into
> Siberia, one grain of sand at a time.

I can't argue with your company's position, clearly they have the old names ingrained pretty deeply. Many grains of sand to be moved there. But I will tell you a story about how "AS/400" cost a business dearly and how it could be costing yours:

In discussions with a potential customer (would have been their largest to date) the question was asked: "So what systems do you run your business on?" The CIO knowing full well that they ran IBM i on POWER considered for a second if they would know what that was. He answered: "AS/400." Nearly instantly and before he could qualify that it was actually a successor system, the potential customer said: "Well that's all we need to know. We won't do business with someone who won't get out of the 90s."

Yep they lost the business. Now the skeptics among you may be saying well they were probably just looking for an excuse and you may even be right. But the point is why not lead with the correct and current name? "We run IBM i on Power Systems." If you get blank stares or questions you then may inform them: "You may recall the iSeries or the system before that the AS/400. This system came from that heritage, still able to run those programs but now more capable and powerful than ever."

This way you lead with current and sound current but remember the past. You only get one chance to make a first impression.

And as to changing the use, I would bet you a fine steak dinner that if you consistently say IBM i and Power Systems unabashed and like you mean it for just six months in conversation, in emails, in documentation etc that you WILL see that sand begin to move. Don't CORRECT People, don't push it just use the names correctly. Over time the wind will pick up and help you and others will follow. There will probably be hold outs no doubt but you'll see progress until only the hold outs will be left looking, well, old.

- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis

www.Frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.

On 9/22/2015 5:41 PM, John Yeung wrote:

I think I get what you're saying. I was going to say something
similar, but I would phrase it differently. If I understand you
correctly, you are saying that there is a sizable population that at
least knows what an "AS/400" is. This is far greater than the
population that can even recognize any other names for the IBM
midrange platform.

I would wholeheartedly agree with that. It has been my experience as
well. I would also challenge the notion that "AS/400" only produces
"negative inferences". The table of responses I've personally
encountered is something like

AS/400: Oh, it's a kind of stodgy but extremely reliable machine.
iSeries: Huh?
IBM i: WTF is that?
IBM midrange: <blank stare>

However! What you CAN do where I work is show people a Web site that
is running on "the Four Hundred" (even though ours happens to be a
POWER7). They like that. They think it's cool.

I understand the desire to eradicate "AS/400". I truly do. I
sympathize, and I even do try to do my part. I use "IBM i" with folks
who either already recognize it, or who do not have the term "AS/400"
firmly entrenched. But for some audiences, it's easier to make them
think positively of "AS/400" than to teach them "IBM i".

And honestly, there are also some folks who will never shake their
negative connotations of "AS/400"; and if you teach them "IBM i", all
that you will do is create a person who has negative connotations of
"IBM i". Lipstick on a pig and all that.

John Y.