Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
I was thinking of the process we are going through right now. There are some applications that we will be dropping. The conversion is a convenient way to drop printed bill, credit card processing, etc. It's much harder politically to drop an application in the legacy system. But some applications just aren't cost effective (or maybe secure or private or whatever) and should be dropped. Other processes should be re-designed, but none of the customers want to pay for such a redesign - the old process works OK. In the old days, we could go to a new database or package and accomplish most of this without getting rid of our old computer. -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
David wrote: Keeping the old iron going on -say- a 10 year commitment while rolling out new iron every two years means that you're supporting six generations of mainframes, four or five of which use parts no longer manufactured. So you warehouse parts, and you don't just store them in a Public Storage warehouse, 'cause you're IBM -- you have to have distributed depots, trained FE personnel, test gear, documentation, guaranteed response time. That costs money (and is one of the big reasons that mainframes are uncompetitive in many situations). David, I fully agree with this, it would be impossible to keep it up if they had to keep HW for 10 generations knocking around in a warehouse somewhere. IMHO the time has probably come for IBM to beat the rest of the pack with a new marketing strategy. Background... This coming week, we will be donating 25 Dell PC's to a school( 2nd generation), yes, 3 years ago we gave this school 25 PC's, and now because our maintenance/lease has run out on the next generation, we have convinced them to take another 25 off us, what a cost to the company, which is part of a large US bank that has the policy that once the maintenance/lease contract is over the PC's needs to be replaced. If IBM starts to sell the service instead of the Hardware, the whole thing will change, and they will not have to keep unnecessary HW in warehouses all over the world. A company contacts IBM, buys 230 MIPS for 10 years with the relevant software that goes with it. This will include HW that is current and maintainable, but... the customers must allow for at least 2 major maintenance slots during the 10 years during which 3390-3392, ESS810-ESS???, and Z890-Z9 upgrades can take place... Regards Herbie * This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).If you receive this email in error please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete it from your system. Any unauthorized dissemination, retransmission, or copying of this email and any attachments is prohibited. Euroconex does not accept any responsibility for any breach of confidence, which may arise from the use of email. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Company. This message has been scanned for known computer viruses. * -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
Bruce This reminds me of an IBM event for technical folk held in Madrid in 1971. One of the presentations was someone from a big UK bank who defended IBM having made the 155 and 165 available and relatively shortly afterwards having announced the 158 and 168 - together with the relatively expensive DAT box extension to the 155 and 165. I hope I'm remembering the details about right. I heard about this only second-hand but I believe the argument was that IBM was right to offer the enhanced performance of the 155 and 165 as soon as it could in spite of the fact that it knew that the virtual storage models were well advanced in development. I guess there was a shadow of the it's illegal to preannounce principle hanging over this. Why did I hear about this only second-hand. Well, the Prado and sites such as the Plaza Major were far more interesting! Chris Mason - Original Message - From: Bruce Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 6:41 PM Subject: Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware I worked for one company which had just signed a 7 year lease on a 370/155 without the DAT hardware. They wanted me to upgrade from DOS to MVS, so they had to pop for the DAT box and also extra memory (to the max of 2MB!!!) to get MVS to work. The guy who negotiated the lease was gone soon after -- Bruce Black Senior Software Developer Innovation Data Processing -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Mason) writes: One of the presentations was someone from a big UK bank who defended IBM having made the 155 and 165 available and relatively shortly afterwards having announced the 158 and 168 - together with the relatively expensive DAT box extension to the 155 and 165. I hope I'm remembering the details about right. I heard about this only second-hand but I believe the argument was that IBM was right to offer the enhanced performance of the 155 and 165 as soon as it could in spite of the fact that it knew that the virtual storage models were well advanced in development. I guess there was a shadow of the it's illegal to preannounce principle hanging over this. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007n.html#31 IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007n.html#34 IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware 370/165 ... announce jun70 http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_PP3165.html 370/168 ... announce aug72 http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_PP3168.html for virtual memory ... hacking virtual memory support into MVT (for VS2/SVS) was needed in addition to the virtual memory hardware retrofitted to 165s (there were significant software as well as hardware schedules). this is similar to previous comments about *crash* program to try and get out 370-xa (after FS project was killed) and POK in 1976, convincing the corporation to shutdown vm370 product and transfer all the developers to POK as part of being able to make mvs/xa (software) schedule (although Endicott was eventually able to save part of the vm370 product mission). i've mentioned before about (370 virtual memory) prototype work that went on in pok, using 360/67s and hacking single address space virtual memory into the side of MVT ... as well as cobbling in cp67's (ccw translation) CCWTRAN into MVT ... i.e. cp67 had started out having to build shadow channel programs with real addresses ... for the virtual machine's channel programs; all the (MVT) channel programs passed via EXCP ... would be equivalent virtual address channel programs ... requiring similar translation (and misc. other things like page locking/pinning) recent posts about using CP67's CCWTRANS as part of turning MVT into os2/svs http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#6 IBM S/360 series operating systems history http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#33 Historical curiosity question The other part ... was that there was a lot of work to retrofit virtual memory to 165 ... so much so that they ran into schedule problems. In order to buy back six months in the 165 virtual memory schedule, there was an escalation dropping several features from the original 370 virtual memory architecture. Once the 165 engineers had won that battle, then all the other processors (that had already completed their virtual memory implementations) ... had to go back and remove the dropped features. recent posts mentioning 165-ii schedule issues and impact on dropping features from original 370 virtual memory architecture http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#7 IBM S/360 series operating systems history http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#16 more shared segment archeology http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007j.html#43 z/VM usability http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007k.html#28 IBM 360 Model 20 Questions -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
In a message dated 6/30/2007 4:32:55 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Future business needs may or may not dictate upgrades. YMMV Yeah, but in the end gravity and friction always win out. IBM normally accommodates you by upping the maintenance price. Unsupported eventually gets to the point of no available parts for replacement at any cost. So then you buy spares and cannibalize them and end up using space you need for new servers. The risk is more unpredictable outages and longer time to repair. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
Edward Jaffe astutely observes: According to the charts on www.tech-news.com (see public library), the smallest G6 machine (available 2Q99) was a 9672-X17 cycling at 178 MIPS or 30 MSU. Seven years later, in spite of unprecidented industry-wide MIPS growth, the smallest z9BC (available 2Q06) is a 2096-A01 cycling at only 26 MIPS or 4 MSU. I calculate a drop in MSU of about 86%. Yes, although in fairness the drop to 26 MIPS and 4 MSUs occurred with the z890 Model 110. The z9 BC continued this capacity setting. You can softcap/subcap license 3 z/OS MSUs on any model, so 4 is not actually the minimum. zNALC is also available if you qualify. Now that z/VSE V4 and MWLC are available, you can configure a z9 BC Model B01 (~38 MIPS) and pay subcapacity on that (softcap at roughly 50%). It's a substantial drop in entry price from z/VSE V3 (i.e. full capacity 26 MIPS) from what I can tell. Service bureaus, consortia, partnerships, and other sharing arrangements with LPARs and/or VMs serving multiple organizations should also see these same effects. One 3 MSU LPAR is the same price as two LPARs totalling 3 MSUs, for example. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Specializing in Software Architectures Related to System z Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan and IBM Asia-Pacific E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
Mark Zelden wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:25:34 +0200, R.S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For example I've been using my previous laptop for 5 years, my desktop for 6 years. Home or office? If office, you are probably the exception, but not really too much higher than average. I would say the average is about every 3 years. Office. I *can* change my equipment on demand (since I'm QIP - Quite Important Person vbg), but I don't. No need. 'Scheduled lifetime' for PC's is also a little bit more than 3 years. But mainframe is changed definitely more frequently. g BTW: in autumn '98 we got first computer. PC 166MHz Pentium MMX. 16MB of RAM. This computer is still in use in our operations room. 5 3270 sessions are active on it. BTW2: 2-3 years ago I disposed my 286 'for bridge' (card game) computer. Power supply failed. I had no will to find L-shaped P/S spare. Oh, I used is occassionally to copy 1.2MB 5.25 diskettes for older 3174s. The newer has 2.4MB drives and I couldn't use it. Even connected 2.4MB drive to a PC, but I was able to run it in 1.2MB mode only. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- BRE Bank SA ul. Senatorska 18 00-950 Warszawa www.brebank.pl Sd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydzia Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego, nr rejestru przedsibiorców KRS 025237 NIP: 526-021-50-88 Wedug stanu na dzie 01.01.2007 r. kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA (w caoci opacony) wynosi 118.064.140 z. W zwizku z realizacj warunkowego podwyszenia kapitau zakadowego, na podstawie uchwa XVI WZ z dnia 21.05.2003 r., kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA moe ulec podwyszeniu do kwoty 118.760.528 z. Akcje w podwyszonym kapitale zakadowym bd w caoci opacone. -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
Sadly though, not all ISVs are towing MSU as a base for licensing. They insist on charging you based on MIP capacity of your box. Regards, Jasbir -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Timothy Sipples Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 2:39 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware Edward Jaffe astutely observes: According to the charts on www.tech-news.com (see public library), the smallest G6 machine (available 2Q99) was a 9672-X17 cycling at 178 MIPS or 30 MSU. Seven years later, in spite of unprecidented industry-wide MIPS growth, the smallest z9BC (available 2Q06) is a 2096-A01 cycling at only 26 MIPS or 4 MSU. I calculate a drop in MSU of about 86%. Yes, although in fairness the drop to 26 MIPS and 4 MSUs occurred with the z890 Model 110. The z9 BC continued this capacity setting. You can softcap/subcap license 3 z/OS MSUs on any model, so 4 is not actually the minimum. zNALC is also available if you qualify. Now that z/VSE V4 and MWLC are available, you can configure a z9 BC Model B01 (~38 MIPS) and pay subcapacity on that (softcap at roughly 50%). It's a substantial drop in entry price from z/VSE V3 (i.e. full capacity 26 MIPS) from what I can tell. Service bureaus, consortia, partnerships, and other sharing arrangements with LPARs and/or VMs serving multiple organizations should also see these same effects. One 3 MSU LPAR is the same price as two LPARs totalling 3 MSUs, for example. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Specializing in Software Architectures Related to System z Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan and IBM Asia-Pacific E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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 -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
Shane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As Tom said, customers generally don't like having to junk their investments every couple of years. I know this isn't what you meant, but nobody has noted (or I missed it!) that, unlike X86 boxes, you actually *don't* junk your investment -- you don't have to re-buy the MIPS you already paid for. ...phsiii -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
Phil Smith III wrote: Shane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As Tom said, customers generally don't like having to junk their investments every couple of years. I know this isn't what you meant, but nobody has noted (or I missed it!) that, unlike X86 boxes, you actually *don't* junk your investment -- you don't have to re-buy the MIPS you already paid for. ??? If I change the machine, because it is CHEAPER THAN UPGRADE - isn't it the case ? Sometimes IBM is willing to pay something for previous machine, sometimes not (or much to less). Last but not least, it is unimportant do you junk the mips or re-use it (buy upgrade only). For me it is important how much does it cost. It remains me discussion about Linux for z/Series. It provides much better (?) memory utilization than bunch of PC's. ...but memory for PC is approx. 150-200 times cheaper. Maybe significant saving in megabytes, but no saving in dolars. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- BRE Bank SA ul. Senatorska 18 00-950 Warszawa www.brebank.pl Sd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydzia Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego, nr rejestru przedsibiorców KRS 025237 NIP: 526-021-50-88 Wedug stanu na dzie 01.01.2007 r. kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA (w caoci opacony) wynosi 118.064.140 z. W zwizku z realizacj warunkowego podwyszenia kapitau zakadowego, na podstawie uchwa XVI WZ z dnia 21.05.2003 r., kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA moe ulec podwyszeniu do kwoty 118.760.528 z. Akcje w podwyszonym kapitale zakadowym bd w caoci opacone. -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
--snip--- snip- Likewise, there are some DC-3s flying around whose only original equipment are their shadows. unsnip-- Don't knock it just because it's old. I rode three of those venerable aircraft down between the trees in sunny southeast Asia and was able to walk away from each crash without a scratch, in spite of unfriendly natives. At least one crashed into a mountain - an kept flying. So what are the Gooney Birds of the computer world? --unsnip-- If the business needs are being satisfied, with reasonable economy, who cares whether the box is the lastest and greatest? Future business needs may or may not dictate upgrades. YMMV -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
I worked for one company which had just signed a 7 year lease on a 370/155 without the DAT hardware. They wanted me to upgrade from DOS to MVS, so they had to pop for the DAT box and also extra memory (to the max of 2MB!!!) to get MVS to work. The guy who negotiated the lease was gone soon after -- Bruce Black Senior Software Developer Innovation Data Processing -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
--snip I worked for one company which had just signed a 7 year lease on a 370/155 without the DAT hardware. They wanted me to upgrade from DOS to MVS, so they had to pop for the DAT box and also extra memory (to the max of 2MB!!!) to get MVS to work. The guy who negotiated the lease was gone soon after -unsnip I agree that this situation is a bit extreme; non-technical folks should NOT be making these types of decisions alone. As loyal and dedicated emloyees, we should be part of that decision process, to try and prevent this kind of costly mistake. By the same token, we have an obligation to look realistically at our employers' best interests. Simply to recommend the latest and greatest hardware and software might be good for the company, or it might be a grave disservice. Long-term planning is a necessity, of technical staff as well as management and marketing staffs. It's called teamwork. It's also called doing the best for the customer. -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rick Fochtman) writes: If the business needs are being satisfied, with reasonable economy, who cares whether the box is the lastest and greatest? Future business needs may or may not dictate upgrades. YMMV a little search engine mainframe surfing for vm/4341 turned up this story about a vm/4341 keeping the nyse running will thru the 80s ... apparently with an old mvt system that had been moved from 360/50s http://www.raylsaunders.com/asmwork.html that i mentioned in this recent post: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007n.html#26 VM system kept NYSE running a quick check just this moment, turns up some problem with the URL ... but (as always) the wayback machine knows http://web.archive.org/web/20060220161415/http://raylsaunders.com/asmwork.html for other topic drift ... we spent some amount of time in the early 90s talking to SIAC about using ha/cmp for much of the work that the tandems were doing (see mainframe MDS-II being replaced with tandem MDS-IIIs in the above reference) ... lots of ha/cmp references: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp this was in the period that we were also working on ha/cmp and trying to cram as much computing into dense footprint, old email references: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#medusa I had actually attempted to do something similar nearly a decade earlier with trying to cram as many 370 chipsets (had about 168-3 thruput) as possible into racks. the old 8-10 yr cycle for mainframe generations (and obsolescence) really showed up when the early 70s FS project was killed http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#futuresys since it was going to be something completely different, much of the work on 370 related stuff pretty much went away. after FS was killed, there was a scramble to get stuff back into the 370 product pipeline. 370-xa/3081 was going to take eight yrs (early 80s) ... so they had to find something else that could be done in possibly half that time. the resulting 303x was quite a bit of warmed over 370. they took the intergrated channel microcode from 158 and made it stand-alone box called channel director. Then 158 paired with a channel director became 3031 (with integrated channel microcode running on different processor). 168 became 3032 repackaged to work with channel director. 3033 started out as 168 wiring diagram implemented with faster chip technology. straight-forward mapping would have just been 20percent faster than 168 ... other tweaks done during development got 3033 up to 1.5times 168. part of the issue was that up to the 80s, lots of technology was on 7-10yr cycle ... where in the 80s, the rate of change started to accelerate, for a time, leaving some mainframe technology in the dust. note that it wasn't just mainframes. circa 1990, there US automobile (C4) task force looked at being able to accelerate (cut in half) us automobile product cycle from 7-8yrs (in attempt to get on level playing field with some of the imports). it was interesting to watch what the mainframe people were saying in the meetings (since they were effectively in the same boat). one of the things that the automobile industry had been doing would run parallel new product projects offset by four yrs (so it appeared that something new was coming out every four yrs). the analogy for mainframes ... was as soon as 3033 was out the door, they started on 3090 (8yr overlap with 3081 with 4yr offset). in fairly stable industry this worked since consumer tastes weren't signicantly changing. However the 8yr lag could become significant if there was any significant change in what the market place was looking for (giving vendors that had much shorter product cycle a competitive edge). some recent references to C4 effort circa 1990 ... attempting to improve competitive footing vis-a-vis several imports: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#50 The Perfect Computer - 36 bits? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007g.html#29 The Perfect Computer - 36 bits? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007g.html#34 U.S. Cedes Top Spot in Global IT Competitiveness http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007g.html#52 U.S. Cedes Top Spot in Global IT Competitiveness http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007i.html#13 U.S. Cedes Top Spot in Global IT Competitiveness http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007j.html#33 IBM Unionization -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
On 28 Jun 2007 11:32:08 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: My 10 year old Multiprise 2003 model 106 is running OS/390 2.10 just fine and I have yet to find any business justification for changing it. I have three customer running OS/390 1.3 on a 2003/103 and their only concern is the political hyperventilation that occurs whenever IBM announces another piece of hardware is going out of support. For a number of reasons, they need to consider upgrading. If they are in the United States, do they have the security infrastructure to handle Sarbanes-Oxley, HIPPA and other legislative requirements? Are they really able to serve their customer needs? I came from a shop that used obsolete computers and for what we were doing at the time it worked. It may work for your customers but that is growing less and less likely. -Original Message- From: Tom Marchant [mailto:snip] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 7:48 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware Ten years? That's a long time. Ten years ago the G4 was announced. How many people have actually ever kept a mainframe for ten years, even with upgrades? -- 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 -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
Pinnacle wrote: IBM would help tremendously if it did not obsolete its mainframes every 5 years. In my client's case, they bought their 9672 in 1997, and it was effectively dead-ended in 2001 when they installed OS/390 V2R10. IBM just withdrew the z890, and we're due for the next levelset to take out the z800 and z900 series. Companies who used to get 10 years out of a mainframe can do so no longer because IBM won't permit it. As a developer, I wish I could wave a magic wand and turn every old ESA/390 architecture box into a shiny new System z. I suspect there are many developers that feel the same way, including those within IBM. This transformation has thus far proved to be the first crucial step towards creating highly competitive mainframe environments that will help propel our industry out of its current slump. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
In a message dated 6/28/2007 7:51:52 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: transformation has thus far proved to be the first crucial step towards creating highly competitive mainframe environments that will help propel our industry out of its current slump. What was it, 'ATT adds 2000 for iPhone rollout'? Guess I've said it so many times my fingers hurt. IBM needs a low-end model other than 'null and if you don't like it we'll sue'. 1)Maybe VM on pci/MCA card. 2)Development system to replace A10/A20(warthog). 3)Feed the kitty(or it will eat you)-scholarships and trainee/co-op positions for hard sciences. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 01:30 -0400, Pinnacle wrote: IBM would help tremendously if it did not obsolete its mainframes every 5 years [...] Companies who used to get 10 years out of a mainframe can do so no longer because IBM won't permit it. Tom, things are going to churn *faster*. Apple's going to release a cell phone tomorrow that has 8,000 times the memory of the /145 we used to run IMS on (or 80 3330 spindles if you prefer). BlueGene/L is running at just under 300 *teraflops*. In 50 years, DASD recording density has increased 75 million times, and theoretical densities for perpendicular recording suggest we can beat *that* five times over. Moore's Law has been remarkably stable over the years, and it is widely believed that it will continue to hold for the next few chip generations, 10-20 years out. If IBM doesn't chase the technology, then the competition will, and IBM will die. So you have new m/f generations every couple of years - it's a matter of pure economic survival. (Just for grins, check out the top 100 list of supercomputers at http://www.top500.org/list/2007/06/100 and notice how many of these are IBM's.) Keeping the old iron going on -say- a 10 year commitment while rolling out new iron every two years means that you're supporting six generations of mainframes, four or five of which use parts no longer manufactured. So you warehouse parts, and you don't just store them in a Public Storage warehouse, 'cause you're IBM -- you have to have distributed depots, trained FE personnel, test gear, documentation, guaranteed response time. That costs money (and is one of the big reasons that mainframes are uncompetitive in many situations). IBM hasn't much choice: either innovate or walk away. The prohibitive cost of a run-amok support structure forces that same choice on us. -- David Andrews A. Duda and Sons, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 05:50 -0700, Edward Jaffe wrote: As a developer, I wish I could wave a magic wand and turn every old ESA/390 architecture box into a shiny new System z. You on commission for the increased software licenses that would likely ensue Ed ???. As Tom said, customers generally don't like having to junk their investments every couple of years. Shane ... -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
On Jun 28, 2007, at 12:30 AM, Pinnacle wrote: Tim, IBM would help tremendously if it did not obsolete its mainframes every 5 years. In my client's case, they bought their 9672 in 1997, and it was effectively dead-ended in 2001 when they installed OS/390 V2R10. IBM just withdrew the z890, and we're due for the next levelset to take out the z800 and z900 series. Companies who used to get 10 years out of a mainframe can do so no longer because IBM won't permit it. Regards, Tom Conley Tom, Its no so much IBM but other forces at work here, I believe. The last and not the least Sarbannes Oxley and of course Y2K (not that should ever happen again) and there are other non regulatory forces at work. There are also costs that play into it like never before. Of course saying that, IBM is not helping out the matter either. Their seeming insistence about not needing a 64 bit COBOL is dragging the whole mess down the black hole. I personally think IBM is hell bent on going out of business. The question of the week should be Who will replace IBM? Ed -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:30:36 -0400, Pinnacle wrote: ... Companies who used to get 10 years out of a mainframe can do so no longer because IBM won't permit it. Ten years? That's a long time. Ten years ago the G4 was announced. How many people have actually ever kept a mainframe for ten years, even with upgrades? -- Tom Marchant -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
Shane wrote: On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 05:50 -0700, Edward Jaffe wrote: As a developer, I wish I could wave a magic wand and turn every old ESA/390 architecture box into a shiny new System z. You on commission for the increased software licenses that would likely ensue Ed ???. As Tom said, customers generally don't like having to junk their investments every couple of years. I never suggested being compensated for the use of my magic wand. And, I never suggested the replacement machines had to be any bigger/faster than the old ones. (FWIW, the same speed machine converted to a newer generation will have a smaller MSU value on which software charges are based due to the so-called technology dividend.) So don't go there! What I'm talking about is a purely technical matter, but with far-reaching consequences that affect all mainframe customers. Any experienced mainframe software developer will confirm that the amount of baggage being carried around in commercial software products to accommodate old technology is staggering. Being constantly pulled in two directions, with one set of customers demanding exploitation of new hardware/software features and the other set of customers still running really old stuff, you start to look and feel like a piece of salt-water taffy ... and so does the code. If all customers were somehow magically upgraded to System z, a lot of dual-path (much of which compounds over time to become multi-, multi-path) code could be removed. And, the expensive and time-consuming chore of testing and supporting those old environments would disappear. Development planning and implementation would be greatly simplified. And, new functionality would appear much more quickly and with a cheaper price tag -- benefiting everyone. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
How many people have actually ever kept a mainframe for ten years, even with upgrades? There was a company in the Hartford, CT area years ago that had a seven year lease on their processor. It caused them to remain back-level for a long time. Based on IBM's aggressive schedule, I think three years is about the max shops should consider. IBM tends to offer attractive upgrade packages to lessen the impact of rapid obsolescence. Bob Shannon Rocket Software -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
On 28 Jun 2007 07:09:30 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shane) wrote: As a developer, I wish I could wave a magic wand and turn every old ESA/390 architecture box into a shiny new System z. You on commission for the increased software licenses that would likely ensue Ed ???. As Tom said, customers generally don't like having to junk their investments every couple of years. We junk PCs. What is needed is a lease mentality with computers. The budget includes upgrades and obsolescence. -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
On 28 Jun 2007 07:52:28 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: Any experienced mainframe software developer will confirm that the amount of baggage being carried around in commercial software products to accommodate old technology is staggering. Being constantly pulled in two directions, with one set of customers demanding exploitation of new hardware/software features and the other set of customers still running really old stuff, you start to look and feel like a piece of salt-water taffy ... and so does the code. I truly believe that some of the attraction to businesses in moving away from mainframes is the same attraction that someone with a filled up garage has to moving to a new house. When we buy a new personal computer, it is possible to clone the old one to the new one - but we seem to copy old problems over as well. Starting over is cleaner. When Apple redesigned their core operating system, they were able to get rid of many problems - including security problems. Microsoft chose to try to be more backward compatible - which means their security fixes are more like patches instead of design. IBM has had mainframes with multiple operating systems for some time. But it isn't common for us to use these as an opportunity to start over with a redesign of our IS from scratch.So we force ourselves to do so by buying incompatible computers.That's our stupidity - but IBM could do a better job marketing a smarter solution. -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
How many people have actually ever kept a mainframe for ten years, even with upgrades? Once we went from TCM to CMOS, yes. But, sometimes it was only the serial number that was preserved. Even the panels changed! - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
And notice the age distribution. Skews to considerably less than 5 yrs. IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU wrote on 06/28/2007 10:06:41 AM: If IBM doesn't chase the technology, then the competition will, and IBM will die. So you have new m/f generations every couple of years - it's a matter of pure economic survival. (Just for grins, check out the top 100 list of supercomputers at http://www.top500.org/list/2007/06/100 and notice how many of these are IBM's.) David Andrews - The information contained in this communication (including any attachments hereto) is confidential and is intended solely for the personal and confidential use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. The information may also constitute a legally privileged confidential communication. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or unauthorized use of this information, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. Thank you -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
Howard Brazee wrote: I truly believe that some of the attraction to businesses in moving away from mainframes is the same attraction that someone with a filled up garage has to moving to a new house. An interesting conjecture. I think there's a lot of truth to it... -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
To my old friend Ed Jaffe's comment... If all customers were somehow magically upgraded to System z, a lot of dual-path (much of which compounds over time to become multi-, multi-path) code could be removed. And, the expensive and time-consuming chore of testing and supporting those old environments would disappear. Development planning and implementation would be greatly simplified. And, new functionality would appear much more quickly and with a cheaper price tag -- benefiting everyone. I can only add what he said!! There's a real schism in the market at present and it takes a lot of effort to satisfy both ends of the spectrum. Folks who are behind the curve are typically spending a lot less money with IBM and their other vendors than those who are current. In other words, the software vendors are not really being rewarded for the effort in supporting back-level customers. At the same time, that effort has a negative impact on their ability to deliver new function to customers who are up to date. It may be an uncomfortable reality for some, but vendors are not charities. Sooner or later they will all have to make choices and it isn't hard to guess which direction they're going to have to go in. CC -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
I've never worked anywhere that didn't have to upgrade desktops every 2-3 yrs because of the demands of windoz software. I am advised by an aquaintance who runs IT in a middle sized global company that his organization is postponing the upgrade to Vista until the next round of hardware upgrades because of the demands it placed on the hardware. And then there was the problem with a certain model of IBM desktop which seemed to have motherboard failures just after the warranty ended a few yrs ago. We had to replace about half of all destops on an emergency basis when crisis hit. One unit seemed to fail each day. What is annoying about replacing the mainframes is that they are, after 5+ yrs, as well-running (good) as the day they were delivered -- merely obsolete with respect to the software. If the power and footprint costs aren't excessive, they could be downgraded to linux servers. There's always a need for a few more of them. IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU wrote on 06/28/2007 10:09:11 AM: On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 05:50 -0700, Edward Jaffe wrote: As Tom said, customers generally don't like having to junk their investments every couple of years. Shane ... - The information contained in this communication (including any attachments hereto) is confidential and is intended solely for the personal and confidential use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. The information may also constitute a legally privileged confidential communication. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or unauthorized use of this information, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. Thank you -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:46:00 +, Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How many people have actually ever kept a mainframe for ten years, even with upgrades? Once we went from TCM to CMOS, yes. Do you want to be more specific? That could be a small or a big difference, depending on the models. How old was the old computer when you replaced it? -- Tom Marchant -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:06:21 -0400, Kirk Talman wrote: ... What is annoying about replacing the mainframes is that they are, after 5+ yrs, as well-running (good) as the day they were delivered -- merely obsolete with respect to the software. As well too small for the increasing workload. And too power hungry... -- Tom Marchant -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
Kirk Talman wrote: I've never worked anywhere that didn't have to upgrade desktops every 2-3 yrs because of the demands of windoz software. I am advised by an aquaintance who runs IT in a middle sized global company that his organization is postponing the upgrade to Vista until the next round of hardware upgrades because of the demands it placed on the hardware. For example I've been using my previous laptop for 5 years, my desktop for 6 years. During this time I changed CPC 4 times. I'm not talking about CPU upgrades (another CP enabled), I mean change of whole box. Only one of these machines wasn't able to be upgraded without model change. Last, but not least: I know *more than one* company which change mainframes more often than PC's. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- BRE Bank SA ul. Senatorska 18 00-950 Warszawa www.brebank.pl Sd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydzia Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego, nr rejestru przedsibiorców KRS 025237 NIP: 526-021-50-88 Wedug stanu na dzie 01.01.2007 r. kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA (w caoci opacony) wynosi 118.064.140 z. W zwizku z realizacj warunkowego podwyszenia kapitau zakadowego, na podstawie uchwa XVI WZ z dnia 21.05.2003 r., kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA moe ulec podwyszeniu do kwoty 118.760.528 z. Akcje w podwyszonym kapitale zakadowym bd w caoci opacone. -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
---snip--- How many people have actually ever kept a mainframe for ten years, even with upgrades? ---unsnip- LONG ago, a Chicago firm bought 3033 CPU's on a ten-year lease. The resulting shake-up in senior management left scars that are still visible today. The volcano erupted two years into the lease and is still smouldering to this day. -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
On 28 Jun 2007 09:11:10 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is annoying about replacing the mainframes is that they are, after 5+ yrs, as well-running (good) as the day they were delivered -- merely obsolete with respect to the software. If the power and footprint costs aren't excessive, they could be downgraded to linux servers. There's always a need for a few more of them. It is interesting to read about obsolete supercomputers being sold for scrap - they just use up too much power to be used for ordinary tasks, which they weren't designed for anyway. -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
Do you want to be more specific? That could be a small or a big difference, depending on the models. How old was the old computer when you replaced it? The 'old' computer was an ES/9021-RX2. It had started out as a 3090. The replacement was a 9672-R64 (circa 199?). It's still on the floor (I no longer am) as a z/900 (unsupported). I haven't been there for over four years, and it was around 5 years old. The only thing that truly exists is the serial number. Since I no longer work there, I may have some of the dates wrong, but it was around for a long time. The serial number for the z/990 at the company I just left (involuntarily) has been around for at least 7 years. It started as a z/900 and is now a z/990 on its way to a z9. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
How can you say that software vendors are not being rewarded for customers who don't stay current? The vendor still collects his yearly maintenance fee. If they said to customers, we won't support you any more because you aren't current, software vendors would lose a lot of business. I do see your point that it costs more to keep both old and new stuff working, but maybe thats just a cost of doing business. Eric Bielefeld Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer Milwaukee, Wisconsin 414-475-7434 - Original Message - From: Craddock, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] those who are current. In other words, the software vendors are not really being rewarded for the effort in supporting back-level customers. At the same time, that effort has a negative impact on their ability to deliver new function to customers who are up to date. It may be an uncomfortable reality for some, but vendors are not charities. Sooner or later they will all have to make choices and it isn't hard to guess which direction they're going to have to go in. CC -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
My old pal Craddock, Chris wrote: I can only add what he said!! There's a real schism in the market at present and it takes a lot of effort to satisfy both ends of the spectrum. Folks who are behind the curve are typically spending a lot less money with IBM and their other vendors than those who are current. In other words, the software vendors are not really being rewarded for the effort in supporting back-level customers. At the same time, that effort has a negative impact on their ability to deliver new function to customers who are up to date. It may be an uncomfortable reality for some, but vendors are not charities. Sooner or later they will all have to make choices and it isn't hard to guess which direction they're going to have to go in. Hopelessly lagging customers rarely upgrade their software. But, they continue to pay maintenance, which usually entitles them to do so. Many ISV product developers have a difficult time convincing management to drop support for those older environments even though they drastically hinder current development. Typically, the guy (or gal) sitting behind the desk, punches a few numbers into a calculator, looks up and says, No. Fortunately, this is one area in which IBM really gets it. Their aggressive EOS schedules have been a real help in moving things along. (Of course, this is exactly what Tom was complaining about.) By effectively obsoleting ESA/390 -- z/OS 1.6 requires z/Architecture -- they have relieved their *own* developers of much of the compatibility pain currently being suffered by ISVs. I look forward to the day, hopefully just a few years from now, when we'll be able to drop support for ESA/390 as well. Perhaps I'll celebrate by opening that nice bottle of wine I've been saving. Or, maybe I'll just go back into my office and write some code that uses FLOGR. Of course, I'll have to dual-path the code since FLOGR isn't supported on z900/z800 and z990/z890. Some things never change. ;-) -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
Eric Bielefeld wrote: How can you say that software vendors are not being rewarded for customers who don't stay current? The vendor still collects his yearly maintenance fee. If they said to customers, we won't support you any more because you aren't current, software vendors would lose a lot of business. I do see your point that it costs more to keep both old and new stuff working, but maybe thats just a cost of doing business. Eric Bielefeld Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer Milwaukee, Wisconsin 414-475-7434 - Original Message - From: Craddock, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] those who are current. In other words, the software vendors are not really being rewarded for the effort in supporting back-level customers. At the same time, that effort has a negative impact on their ability to deliver new function to customers who are up to date. It may be an uncomfortable reality for some, but vendors are not charities. Sooner or later they will all have to make choices and it isn't hard to guess which direction they're going to have to go in. CC I'm not a software developer but couldn't the developers include in their contracts that if a client is running an unsupported level of the operating system (or related software like DB2 for a DB2 tool company) the yearly support charge is higher than if they ran a supported level. -- Mark Jacobs Technical Services Time Customer Service - Tampa, FL -- Victory in defeat, there is none higher. She didn't give up, Ben; she's still trying to lift that stone after it has crushed her. She's a father going down to a dull office job while cancer is painfully eating away his insides, so as to bring home one more pay check for the kids. She's a twelve-year-old girl trying to mother her baby brothers and sisters because Mama had to go to Heaven. She's a switchboard operator sticking to her job while smoke is choking her and the fire is cutting off her escape. She's all the unsung heroes who couldn't quite cut it but never quit.* Robert A. Heinlein - Stranger in a Strange Land *Referring to the Auguste Rodin sculpture, Caryatid Who Has Fallen under Her Stone -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
On 28 Jun 2007 09:38:43 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: LONG ago, a Chicago firm bought 3033 CPU's on a ten-year lease. The resulting shake-up in senior management left scars that are still visible today. The volcano erupted two years into the lease and is still smouldering to this day. Car salesmen tell us that lease is just another way of paying for the car you buy. Don't buy hardware with ten-year leases.If you want that long of a commitment, think rent - and think IS Solutions.This is where IBM has its ads right.But I don't know what kinds of contracts they have to finance getting a computer today - and in 10 years having an equivalent (relative to the times) computer. -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
- Original Message - From: Edward Jaffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 12:54 PM Subject: Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware My old pal Craddock, Chris wrote: I can only add what he said!! There's a real schism in the market at present and it takes a lot of effort to satisfy both ends of the spectrum. Folks who are behind the curve are typically spending a lot less money with IBM and their other vendors than those who are current. In other words, the software vendors are not really being rewarded for the effort in supporting back-level customers. At the same time, that effort has a negative impact on their ability to deliver new function to customers who are up to date. It may be an uncomfortable reality for some, but vendors are not charities. Sooner or later they will all have to make choices and it isn't hard to guess which direction they're going to have to go in. Hopelessly lagging customers rarely upgrade their software. But, they continue to pay maintenance, which usually entitles them to do so. Many ISV product developers have a difficult time convincing management to drop support for those older environments even though they drastically hinder current development. Typically, the guy (or gal) sitting behind the desk, punches a few numbers into a calculator, looks up and says, No. Fortunately, this is one area in which IBM really gets it. Their aggressive EOS schedules have been a real help in moving things along. (Of course, this is exactly what Tom was complaining about.) By effectively obsoleting ESA/390 -- z/OS 1.6 requires z/Architecture -- they have relieved their *own* developers of much of the compatibility pain currently being suffered by ISVs. I look forward to the day, hopefully just a few years from now, when we'll be able to drop support for ESA/390 as well. Perhaps I'll celebrate by opening that nice bottle of wine I've been saving. Or, maybe I'll just go back into my office and write some code that uses FLOGR. Of course, I'll have to dual-path the code since FLOGR isn't supported on z900/z800 and z990/z890. Some things never change. ;-) While I can depreciate the fact that Ed and Chris are inconvenienced as software vendors from a support standpoint, most clients I deal with find the 3-5 year depreciation cycle on IBM mainframes to be way too short. I remember going to the IBM gripe, er, open discussion session at SHARE a few years back where a number of government customers were concerned about IBM shortening the life cycle of mainframe hardware. Most of them had a 1-2 year procurement process alone, which really put them behind the 8-ball by the time a decision was made to purchase. That's one of the reasons that so many government customers are not running the latest and greatest. The IRS has also not caught up to this new depreciation cycle, so there are tax ramifications to not being able to depreciate the new hardware in 3-5 years. For those of you who saw fit to trot out the tired We replace PC's every three years shibboleth, puh-leeze!! IBM has always been first and foremost about protecting the customer's investment, but they're getting away from that on the hardware side Software not so much, because unlike most PC software manufacturers, IBM doesn't feel the need to completely rewrite the user interface (remember, no PC software upgrade is complete unless the developers have completely rewritten the UI so that the users have to be completely retrained). Maybe we all just have to adjust to this new reality. All I can tell you is that I ain't seeing it. Regards, Tom Conley -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
On 28 Jun 2007 09:43:30 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ted MacNEIL) wrote: The 'old' computer was an ES/9021-RX2. It had started out as a 3090. The replacement was a 9672-R64 (circa 199?). It's still on the floor (I no longer am) as a z/900 (unsupported). I haven't been there for over four years, and it was around 5 years old. The only thing that truly exists is the serial number. Sounds like the 300 year old ax. The handle was replaced 5 times, and the head 3 times, but it was the same ax. That is the only kind of computer that should have a 10 year life span. But even it shouldn't have a 25 year life span without having its IS functions redesigned. -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Howard Brazee Car salesmen tell us that lease is just another way of paying for the car you buy. But at the end of a lease you have to give it back (absent a purchase option). When you buy it, you get to keep it. -jc- -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Howard Brazee On 28 Jun 2007 09:43:30 -0700, Ted MacNEIL wrote: The 'old' computer was an ES/9021-RX2. It had started out as a 3090. The replacement was a 9672-R64 (circa 199?). It's still on the floor (I no longer am) as a z/900 (unsupported). I haven't been there for over four years, and it was around 5 years old. The only thing that truly exists is the serial number. Sounds like the 300 year old ax. The handle was replaced 5 times, and the head 3 times, but it was the same ax. Likewise, there are some DC-3s flying around whose only original equipment are their shadows. That is the only kind of computer that should have a 10 year life span. But even it shouldn't have a 25 year life span without having its IS functions redesigned. One could probably fit a z9's innards into a S/360 box, if one were so inclined -jc- -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 11:37 -0500, Rick Fochtman wrote: ---snip--- How many people have actually ever kept a mainframe for ten years, even with upgrades? ---unsnip- LONG ago, a Chicago firm bought 3033 CPU's on a ten-year lease. The resulting shake-up in senior management left scars that are still visible today. The volcano erupted two years into the lease and is still smouldering to this day. In the late '70s Lloyd's was hammered on a bunch of policies that had been written on Itel leases (eight year terms weren't uncommon). Many leases were cancelled when the cheap 43xx machines came out. -- David Andrews A. Duda and Sons, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 12:55 -0400, Mark Jacobs wrote: I'm not a software developer but couldn't the developers include in their contracts that if a client is running an unsupported level of the operating system (or related software like DB2 for a DB2 tool company) the yearly support charge is higher than if they ran a supported level. Works for me... as long as I can write a similar contract that says I don't want to pay for new development work on a product that works well enough as it is. Cuts both ways, y'know. -- David Andrews A. Duda and Sons, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
snip- Likewise, there are some DC-3s flying around whose only original equipment are their shadows. unsnip-- Don't knock it just because it's old. I rode three of those venerable aircraft down between the trees in sunny southeast Asia and was able to walk away from each crash without a scratch, in spite of unfriendly natives. Moral of the story: old doesn't necessarily mean useless or unsafe; it only means that it doesn't live up to the standards and capabilities of today's arena. -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:33:57 -0500, Chase, John wrote: One could probably fit a z9's innards into a S/360 box, if one were so inclined No chance. -- Tom Marchant -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:43:20 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote: The 'old' computer was an ES/9021-RX2. It had started out as a 3090. The replacement was a 9672-R64 (circa 199?). It's still on the floor (I no longer am) as a z/900 (unsupported). I haven't been there for over four years, and it was around 5 years old. The 9021-RX2 was a pretty ancient computer when it was replaced, but nowhere near the ten years that Tom was talking about. I actually dealt with a bigger hardwre leap, from a 3081 to a 9672-R24. I think the 3081 was about 12 years old, but they didn't buy it new. I think they had it for about 8 years. It seems to me that the Rx4 came out about 1996. -- Tom Marchant -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
Ed, No comment on the fact that Tom can depreciate that you are inconvenienced? grin I find this whole discussion mildly amusing. There are reasons you buy new hardware and software. *Supposedly* you are getting better business value out of the new acquisitions that exceeds the existing business value of your current assets. Otherwise, why upgrade? The fact that assets have value that can be depreciated over time is nice for the financial types, but don't forget that once you have spent the money it is a sunk cost. Making business decisions based on sunk costs might save face, but could be disastrous to the decision at hand. Just my $.02 (was a dollar, but has depreciated over 3-5 years) Bob Richards -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edward Jaffe Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:49 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware Pinnacle wrote: While I can depreciate the fact that Ed and Chris are inconvenienced as software vendors from a support standpoint, most clients I deal with find the 3-5 year depreciation cycle on IBM mainframes to be way too short. I remember going to the IBM gripe, er, open discussion session at SHARE a few years back where a number of government customers were concerned about IBM shortening the life cycle of mainframe hardware. Most of them had a 1-2 year procurement process alone, which really put them behind the 8-ball by the time a decision was made to purchase. That's one of the reasons that so many government customers are not running the latest and greatest. Tom, I was there with you at that SHARE meeting. Bob Rogers and Mary Beth Bradley were fielding questions from angry customers for the entire session. That was a special (and especially bad) case and the customers had every right to be angry! snipped LEGAL DISCLAIMER The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. SunTrust and Seeing beyond money are federally registered service marks of SunTrust Banks, Inc. [ST:XCL] -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
My 10 year old Multiprise 2003 model 106 is running OS/390 2.10 just fine and I have yet to find any business justification for changing it. I have three customer running OS/390 1.3 on a 2003/103 and their only concern is the political hyperventilation that occurs whenever IBM announces another piece of hardware is going out of support. -Original Message- From: Tom Marchant [mailto:snip] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 7:48 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware Ten years? That's a long time. Ten years ago the G4 was announced. How many people have actually ever kept a mainframe for ten years, even with upgrades? -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
Ah, Bob Richards is as witty as always. It's not only government agencies that don't run on the latest and greatest. Banks have the problem also. We are currently on the latest and greatest because we upgraded from a 9672 to a z9BC last year, but that z9BC is on the books for 5 years. We are currently upgrading our 5 year old disk farm to the latest and that will also be on the books for the next 5 years. Oh well, I guess we have to enjoy having up-to-date systems while it lasts. Tom Kelman Commerce Bank of Kansas City (816) 760-7632 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richards.Bob Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:16 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware Ed, No comment on the fact that Tom can depreciate that you are inconvenienced? grin I find this whole discussion mildly amusing. There are reasons you buy new hardware and software. *Supposedly* you are getting better business value out of the new acquisitions that exceeds the existing business value of your current assets. Otherwise, why upgrade? The fact that assets have value that can be depreciated over time is nice for the financial types, but don't forget that once you have spent the money it is a sunk cost. Making business decisions based on sunk costs might save face, but could be disastrous to the decision at hand. Just my $.02 (was a dollar, but has depreciated over 3-5 years) Bob Richards -Original Message- * If you wish to communicate securely with Commerce Bank and its affiliates, you must log into your account under Online Services at http://www.commercebank.com or use the Commerce Bank Secure Email Message Center at https://securemail.commercebank.com NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any attached files are confidential. The information is exclusively for the use of the individual or entity intended as the recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, printing, reviewing, retention, disclosure, distribution or forwarding of the message or any attached file is not authorized and is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please advise the sender by reply electronic mail immediately and permanently delete the original transmission, any attachments and any copies of this message from your computer system. * -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
When my software license fees remain unchanged but the service reduces from right to use and obtain support to just right to use, I call that a cash cow, not a cash drain. I don't know anyone who expects a software vendor to support an old version indefinitely nor do I know any vendors who do. Hopefully, by the time a new version is ready to be shipped (not marketed), the old one is stable enough to be usable without support. And if it's not, why should I have any more confidence in the new version? -Original Message- From: Edward Jaffe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:53 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware Hopelessly lagging customers rarely upgrade their software. But, they continue to pay maintenance, which usually entitles them to do so. Many ISV product developers have a difficult time convincing management to drop support for those older environments even though they drastically hinder current development. Typically, the guy (or gal) sitting behind the desk, punches a few numbers into a calculator, looks up and says, No. Fortunately, this is one area in which IBM really gets it. Their aggressive EOS schedules have been a real help in moving things along. (Of course, this is exactly what Tom was complaining about.) By effectively obsoleting ESA/390 -- z/OS 1.6 requires z/Architecture -- they have relieved their *own* developers of much of the compatibility pain currently being suffered by ISVs. I look forward to the day, hopefully just a few years from now, when we'll be able to drop support for ESA/390 as well. Perhaps I'll celebrate by opening that nice bottle of wine I've been saving. Or, maybe I'll just go back into my office and write some code that uses FLOGR. Of course, I'll have to dual-path the code since FLOGR isn't supported on z900/z800 and z990/z890. Some things never change. ;-) -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
The gummit. How old are the mainframes used by FAA? IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU wrote on 06/28/2007 10:47:50 AM: On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:30:36 -0400, Pinnacle wrote: How many people have actually ever kept a mainframe for ten years, even with upgrades? Tom Marchant - The information contained in this communication (including any attachments hereto) is confidential and is intended solely for the personal and confidential use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. The information may also constitute a legally privileged confidential communication. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or unauthorized use of this information, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. Thank you -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:30:36 -0400, Pinnacle wrote: IBM would help tremendously if it did not obsolete its mainframes every 5 years. In my client's case, they bought their 9672 in 1997, and it was effectively dead-ended in 2001 when they installed OS/390 V2R10. IBM just withdrew the z890, and we're due for the next levelset to take out the z800 and z900 series. Companies who used to get 10 years out of a mainframe can do so no longer because IBM won't permit it. I think part of this is just bad timing. If you were on an older 9672, you had to upgrade to a z/architecture machine because OS's became unsupported. Once on a z machine, you're set for a while. I don't believe the z890 is being dropped from support, just marketing. And I think the 800/900 series and the 990 have already been withdrawn. Isn't the 890 the last ??? In our case, we migrated from an older 9672 to a z800 because we couldn't go z/arch on the 9672 and our policy is to run only supported OS's. So we had to upgrade. Then we ran out of capacity on our z800 and came to a point where we needed to add capacity. We originally bought the frame intending on expanding capacity in the future. But when we priced a capacity upgrade, we found it was cheaper to go z9 instead of upgrade. If you want to buy enough capacity to last 10 years (I think z/arch will be around that long), you can probably keep your machine that long. But do you really want to pay for that capacity in anticipation of needing it ??? And when IBM makes you a deal you can't refuse, why pass it up just because of emotional attachment -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
Barry I worked for a software vendor in the '80s that sold a 3270 optimization product for CICS. There were a large number of customers that would buy a version, never pay maintenance and hardly ever have a problem until they finally (typically after more than 5 years) went to a version of CICS where the product exits would not work because of changes to CICS. Then they would buy the product again to get support for the new version. Not everyone pays maintenance and there are times when customers save money by not paying maintenance. It all depends upon the stability of the product. Tom Moulder -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schwarz, Barry A Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:42 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware When my software license fees remain unchanged but the service reduces from right to use and obtain support to just right to use, I call that a cash cow, not a cash drain. I don't know anyone who expects a software vendor to support an old version indefinitely nor do I know any vendors who do. Hopefully, by the time a new version is ready to be shipped (not marketed), the old one is stable enough to be usable without support. And if it's not, why should I have any more confidence in the new version? No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.10/876 - Release Date: 6/28/2007 10:56 AM -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:25:34 +0200, R.S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For example I've been using my previous laptop for 5 years, my desktop for 6 years. Home or office? If office, you are probably the exception, but not really too much higher than average. I would say the average is about every 3 years. A lot of people around here were running win-doze NT for a very long time (1998-2005), but that was because of the software mix in the standard desktop image more than anything. Hardware (desktops, laptops) were upgraded but re-loaded with the standard image. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group: G-ITO mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] z/OS and OS390 expert at http://searchDataCenter.com/ateExperts/ Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- 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
Re: IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
On Jun 28, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Mark Zelden wrote: --SNIP-- A lot of people around here were running win-doze NT for a very long time (1998-2005), but that was because of the software mix in the standard desktop image more than anything. Hardware (desktops, laptops) were upgraded but re-loaded with the standard image. Mark -- Well, I can beat that... for about 3 years (1995-1998) I was running windows 3.11 and it crashed 4-8 times a day. They then gave me NT 3.51 notebook and it only crashed once a day . This was a work computer. At home I was running OS/2 and it might have crashed once in 8 years. Now I run MAC os X and have the same reliability that OS/2 had except the need for booting after software installs is higher than OS/2. Ed -- 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
IBM obsoleting mainframe hardware
- Original Message - From: Timothy Sipples [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 12:28 AM Subject: Re: Finally get to go from os390 2.10 to zOS 1.8 All that said, it's way easier to migrate from OS/390 V2R10 to z/OS 1.8 than it is to migrate to another operating system. Way, way, way easier. And, once you do get current, please don't let this happen again. Stick to the N-minus migration steps. You'll be way, way, way happier. So will your wallet. Tim, IBM would help tremendously if it did not obsolete its mainframes every 5 years. In my client's case, they bought their 9672 in 1997, and it was effectively dead-ended in 2001 when they installed OS/390 V2R10. IBM just withdrew the z890, and we're due for the next levelset to take out the z800 and z900 series. Companies who used to get 10 years out of a mainframe can do so no longer because IBM won't permit it. Regards, Tom Conley -- 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
