-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Mason Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 11:20 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Mainframe vs. "Server" (Was Just another example of mainframe costs.)
Steve Better hang onto that card reader and line printer then. Maybe a card punch is needed for the system generation as well. Chris Mason <snip> I think you missed the point. The mainframe O/Ses already had the "drivers" (support) for the various graphics devices. Mainframes (regardless of who made them) had standardized devices and interfaces (at least true for all the machines I've worked on/with). The PCMs had to make sure that their equipment functioned EXACTLY like the machine/device they were replacing from the big vendor (IBM, Univac, Honeywell, Burroughs, etc.). So they were plug and use, not plug and experiment. And if it did come down to that, the PCM was the one spending the money. The "open" systems may have standard interface definitions, but you can have some real pain with conflicts. And there is NO ONE to sit down and work it all out, except for the end user. However, mainframe systems were typically, plug/generate (or generate/plug) & USE, or in the case of VTAM, define and VARY... For "open" systems, this is yet another hidden cost. Regards, Steve Thompson ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
