Re: COBOL Compiler for Windows

"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:iu0j14p6qu5vcaj726itutemuaimqvpta8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 10:39:46 +1200 "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> :>Most people consider these factors to be unique to mainframes:
>
> :>1. Huge processing power.
> :>2. Stability and security.
> :>3. Traditional proven development methodology, perfect for batch 
> processing.
>
> :>To obtain these benefits, many sites are happy to pay the much higher 
> costs
> :>of hardware/software and the sup****t teams necessary to keep them 
> running.
> :>(They have been conditioned to over years by vendors, ever since the 
> days
> :>when the mainframe was the only game in town.) But I think it is being
> :>questioned now.
>
> :>The latest top end Network servers can compete very favourably on
point 
> 1.
> :>And even though the price of mainframes has fallen, the servers are
much
> :>cheaper and can be more easily configured and reconfigured and 
> redeployed in
> :>ways to suit the Business.
>
> You have to define "huge processing power". Many chips run faster than 
> those
> on mainframes.

Thank you. That was my point.
>
> They can parallel process huge amounts of data.
>

Yes, they can.

> :>Point 2 is largely an illusion. Certainly, there are no viruses on
> :>mainframes, but there will be once they are opened up to the network;
it 
> is
> :>only a matter of time. (No, I don't have mainframe virus writing on my
> :>"TODO" list, but it would be an "interesting" exercise... :-)).
>
> Spoken like a true PC expert, who has no problem with reboots. So much
so,
> that they do it multiple times a day.

I have a Win 98 SE machine that runs 24/7. It was last rebooted 3 months 
ago. The Notebook I am writing this on (Win XP SP2) has not been booted
for 
6 days (it hibernates between uses).

The last commercial site I was managing had multiple 8 processor Xeons and

they were cold booted twice during the year I was there.

The last IBM mainframe system I worked on (admittedly a long time ago
now), 
was rebooted every Monday morning after Preventive Maintenance.

While I don't claim to be a PC expert, I certainly have no problem with 
rebooting ANY computer system if it needs it.


>
> Point two is really 5 9s.

45...? :-)
>
> The reliability of mainframes and their components are such that
failures 
> can
> be tolerated with fallover, so that the end users are not even aware
that 
> a
> component has failed.

The same is easily achievable with network servers also.
>
> Mainframes regularly run months without rebooting. And that is with CPU 
> 95%+
> busy much of the time.

So do certain networks. Your point?
>
> Point three is so meaningless that it isn't even worth addressing.
>

No, probably not. Batch processing will be redundant within your lifetime.

So will mainframes (as we currently understand the term). The boundaries
are 
becoming more and more blurred; in the end, the great mainframe con will
be 
recognised for what it is, and cost effectiveness will simply win the day.

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."