But the users never see, or even realize, that 24,999 other people are using the same box they are. They see their one task; the thing they want to get done. And, if a single user Intel can do that task at twice the speed of the mainframe, and the task takes any noticeable amount of time, then they'll want the PC every time, and no amount of talking or explaining will do anything to talk them out of it.
Sure it's less reliable. (But they're getting better) Sure it costs more overall. (But they're getting cheaper) Sure the opsys really sucks. (But now there are alternatives) We need to face the fact that "Personal Computers" have branched out and are coming of age. The mainframe is going to need to keep ahead of the curve if it is to continue to command the million dollar price tag. I think that we, and IBM, have taken to resting on our laurels, and we all refuse to notice that these cheap, unreliable toys are catching up to the curve. Most of our "excuses" work today still, but in another year or two, I'm not so sure. And I'm finding it hard right now to stand in front of a group and tell them that they're better off serving web pages on a million dollar server, when those same pages can be served by a $299 machine. It takes a whole lot of virtual Linux images to reach the TOC of a $299 machine. I have to go today to explain why we need to spend $100,000 for a web application server, when Tomcat is available for free. It's getting to be a hard sell to stay with IBM. ---- Robert P. Nix internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mayo Clinic phone: 507-284-0844 RO-CE-8-857 page: 507-270-1182 200 First St. SW Rochester, MN 55905 ---- "Codito, Ergo Sum" "In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different." > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven A. Adams [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 8:36 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: URGENT! really low performance. A related question... > > On Sun, 2003-02-16 at 17:32, Mark Darvodelsky wrote: > > Convert your favorite CICS app to the Windows world, connect 25000 > concurrent user sessions and watch the clock - then come back and tell > us how long the Intel box(ES) stayed alive under that realistic load. It > boils down to this, at the end of the day the mainframe is still running > when the Intel units have had to be rebooted multiple time. This goes > without stating that the number of Intel machines it would take to > replace that big chunk of iron would cost just as much in hardware and > require at least 4 times the support layer to keep the monster alive. > TCO rules here. > > All of this from someone that has spent most of the last 20 years on > micro and mid-range machines, interesting perspective huh.
