Pet peeve. Saying mainframes versus servers is like saying Fords versus cars. A mainframe typically IS a server (often among other roles). The first definition Google comes up with for server is "A computer that delivers information and software to other computers linked by a network." I would quibble with that definition (server is also used to describe software) but it certainly fits most mainframes. IBM lists "System Z" under Servers on their home page so I think IBM agrees with this theory.
If we mean "**ix and Windows boxes" or "non-mainframe boxes" then let's say that. I'm not just quibbling over semantics. When I read "vendors are promoting server solutions" I get a totally different image in my mind versus that which I get when I read "vendors are promoting **ix and Windows solutions." While I'm here, I don't think non-mainframe platforms are inherently more profitable for software vendors. Indeed, the traditional mainframe software vendors have struggled trying to achieve the same profitability with their "other box" offerings. Non-mainframe platforms are attractive and profitable for software vendors because that is where BOD and CIO focus is. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Richter Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 7:09 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Just another example of mainframe costs. Many hardware and software vendors maximize profits by promoting server solutions verus mainframe. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
