True. Software costs have clearly been demonstrated to be an inhibitor to mainframe growth.
I don't know why SAS continues to have a pricing structure for the size of a mainframe machine instead of the business value of using the application. Value based pricing (not VWLC) for the mainframe, consistent with similar business value received using non-mainframes, would solve many mainframe dilemmas. Metagroup says, High software prices of Z/OS and dependent utility software will slow zSeries annual growth. Mp Welch Sprint 214-215-7284 -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron and Jenny Hawkins Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 3:13 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust Hands up all of you that have successfully migrated your SAS/MXG applications from MVS to Windows and saved money. Hands up those of you that believe it is now costing more? The MXG PDB is a classic example of an application that can be successfully moved from mainframe to a windows or Unix and provide a better TCO along with improved performance, function and productivity. In fact, if I was asked to develop an MXG PDB from scratch for a site I wouldn't even consider using MVS. A reasonable server class desktop, with XP Professional and some FC connections to SAN storage would be a better and cheaper way to go in almost all cases. Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Welch, Mp P [ITS] > Sent: Thursday, 14 July 2005 3:48 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust > > We've seen that many of our midrange projects end up costing much more > than the mainframe solution they replaced. > > The problem we've seen is that its usually too late to bring the > application back after it migrates regardless of how much more > expensive it becomes. > > If you look at your numbers, you may find the "much more expensive" > mainframe wasn't so expensive after all. > > Even if the perception that the mainframe is too expensive turns out > to be true after reviewing all of the cost factors, there are ways to > reduce many of the cost factors and keep the mainframe infrastructure > cost effective. > > We've seen IBM give us ridiculously high MIP estimates for new > mainframe projects as Norris had mentioned, and CEC based software > contracts have caused unnecessarily high cpu upgrade costs, but we > still feel that our mainframe environment (with proper financial care > and feeding) continues to provide significant contribution to IT value at our company. > > Maybe someday alternative non-mainframe computing will be best for all > our work but if we can wait a little longer those solutions will only > be better (cheaper?) next year... > > Mp Welch > Sprint > 214-215-7284 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
