Undoubtedly to the choir. But they can buy small/medium servers and software from "petty cash". After some dozen(s), it's noticed that the support admins are overworked and stressed, and they pull a position from mainframe and hire another PC jockey. By the time the TCO arguments really make a difference, the commitment to Micro$oft is as entrenched as the mainframe was 15 years ago.
> In fact, we've seen a number of studies > *directly from customers* that show that software costs are > frequently higher on distributed servers than on the mainframe. > Customers tend to forget that they must buy many copies of > software to accomplish the same thing that one copy does on > the mainframe. Not only must they buy more software copies, > but they must also dedicate more bodies to administering that > infrastructure. > > But I'm preaching to the choir here, right? > > I won't go into detail about where IBM sees issues in > software pricing, as it would undoubtedly cause consternation > from some who frequent this list. > Suffice it to say that IBM knows about the problem and is > working to address it. That's precisely why you see the > various flavors of workload-based software pricing and the > "specialty engines" that do not count towards increased MSUs > on the mainframe. > > --- > Bill Seubert > zSeries Software I/T Architect > IBM Corporation > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
