Re: (fwd) Re: Migrating Off IBM Mainframes - Part 2

2006-03-16 Thread Dave Kopischke
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:18:03 -0400, Clark Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Given that the mainframe was running 2.10, I suspect that the >applications running on it were ones that were less than optimal and >this may have forced application consolidation and upgrade. Frankly I >would like to

(fwd) Re: Migrating Off IBM Mainframes - Part 2

2006-03-16 Thread Clark Morris
chke, David G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main >To: >Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:09 PM >Subject: Migrating Off IBM Mainframes - Part 2 > > >> Greetings again, >> Another link on that page pointed to a company that already made

Re: Migrating Off IBM Mainframes - Part 2

2006-03-15 Thread Robert Justice
Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:09 PM Subject: Migrating Off IBM Mainframes - Part 2 Greetings again, Another link on that page pointed to a company that already made this migration. This story is from March 2005. Has anybody heard how well it worked for them and how well it's working now ???

Migrating Off IBM Mainframes - Part 2

2006-03-15 Thread Kopischke, David G.
Greetings again, Another link on that page pointed to a company that already made this migration. This story is from March 2005. Has anybody heard how well it worked for them and how well it's working now ??? "Ancor IT director Kelly Colohan had a decision to make. Informed by IBM that it wou