On 14 Jan 2007 12:11:00 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Clark Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main >To: <IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU> >Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 3:00 PM >Subject: Software charges was Re: Is anyone still >running.......................... > > >> On 14 Jan 2007 06:14:37 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >> >>>Ted, >>> >>>Just because *you* aren't seeing them does not mean others are not. My >>>MIPS have been increasing and my charges, at worst, are holding their >>>own year over year. Keep that room in the tower, Timothy! >>> >> My view of it is that the software charge per MIP/MSU/latest >> measurement unit should follow the same trend as the Windows cost per >> megahertz. Software legitimately (added security and error checking) >> takes more system resource for the same business function as time goes >> on. If software charges don't reflect this the mainframe is going to >> keep on losing. The charge for software for the largest capacity z >> series today should be no larger than that for the comparable software >> on the largest 390 series 10 years ago, possibly inflation adjusted. >> > >good idea, we should make the mainframe act the same as win-doze too. >make it reboot itself for no aparent reason, make it lock up for no apparent >reason, >and every time we wanted to upgrade dfsms or jes2, we'd have to upgrade it >on >a per user basis. here, you get the new jes2 today, next week, the apps >people get it. > >win-doze, or as it should really be called, the tinker toy platform. > >I find it amazing the number of times we see in the "morning status report" >server xyz was rebooted, yet the win-doze people keep getting away with that >time >after time. If we tried that on the REAL computer, (i.e., MAINFRAME), we'd >be shot.
I suspect that a lot of this is just poor management of the Windows systems. Check to see if your Windows people go to the Microsoft site to check on outstanding problems and if they have a maintenance strategy. I apply the maintenance to my home system selectively and find a fair amount of information is available for the fixes they want me to apply. I am relatively sloppy on my home system but the information and tools are there for doing maintenance and upgrade in a controlled fashion. How well are things tested on the Windows side? I have seen postings in other areas boasting about how long Unix and Linux systems have gone between reboots (in terms of months) and I may have seen some related to Windows. If the Windows people aren't managing the system and using tools that are available for that environment, that isn't the fault of Microsoft. Also, if servers are managed properly, an outage may be more like losing a CICS region or DB2 instance. Again, good management will minimize these outages. Windows is designed to be used by people whose skills range from clueless to IT mission critical capable. Since the old rule of fool proofing applies, the better the fool proofing, the more foolish the user, Windows vulnerabilities in an unmanaged environment will be there. This of course is a diversion from the topic of whether Mainframe software pricing relative to computer capability has declined in price to the same extent Windows software has. I contend that Windows software has grown more capable over the past ten years without increasing in price the way mainframe software has. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
