This is one reason we are moving away from CA products. -----Original Message----- From: Bill Stermer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 11:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: URGENT! really low performance. A related question...
Ryan Ware wrote: > Basically there are a bunch of things that make up TCO. In a > mainframe solution the hardware makes up more of the costs, people, network > infrastructure, etc make up less. In a PC server solution it > is reversed. TCO is a very hard thing to define. I think the mainframe > has the deck stacked against it from the standpoint of a lot of people > only looking at the price of the hardware and thinking they can get by with a > PC server. I think you really have to do your homework to convince people > the mainframe is the better solution. > I have more of a problem justifying migrating a existing group 38 system to an "entry level" group 38 z800 or to a group 80 "entry level" system on a z900 when my management compares the software licensing costs from various vendors we use to process what is essentially a static workload. Every time a new mainframe hardware platform is announced the "entry level" group is higher in performance and associated software costs than the previous generation. How many small to medium mainframe shops did IBM loose because of the zSeries software pricing differences? What about third party vendors? How many of them have lost clients because of tiered pricing? Sure, zVM is lower in cost on zSeries and Linux is virtually free but what about those shops running CA or other vendor products looking at a two or more tier jump in pricing to process the same workload on a new machine? Why not say the "entry level" is the lowest processor model and make it a group 10 no matter what the mip rating and leave the software pricing alone? How many shops would keep or buy new mainframes if you only had to pay group 10 pricing for what is now a group 38 box? How many shops would look for new workloads to migrate to the mainframe to utilize the "spare" horsepower? The idea is to grow the market not stunt it with sort term profits. An investment in any mainframe is for long term processing requirements. Those mainframe clients want to stay around and not have the data center viewed as a purveyor of the "platform du jour" or "fad pushers". My $0.02USD... Bill Stermer ACS - City of Anaheim
