IMHO: What Will It Take to Turn the System i Around?

[Guest.Visitor]

IMHO: What Will It Take to Turn the System i Around?

I do agree that IBM's Marketing has, at best, played a reactive role; where as Microsoft is busy proactively getting their hooks in developers by the millions by giving away a "starter" version of the entire Visual Studio suite. And while the traditional Windows developer has always been able to code "in a vaccuum", the appearance of any inferior (i.e. Source-Safe) tool to facilitate development teamwork appears as a "God-send", no matter how rediculously simple the tool may be compared to some of the very mature team development platforms from IBM. Time and time again though, history has shown us that it is not the superiority of a product that wins in the market place, but it is the superiority of the marketing and catering to the masses that help us to understand why an inferior product is better for us. Spending time in my career in virtually every technical position and 6 years of directorship in highly dynamic environments, I have seen technologies come and go. Many deservedly were relegated to the vast waste land of packages that followed the "good idea, bad implementation" model. Taking a peek at history at the other products, you can ask: How was Michael Dell and his dream of competing with IBM able to become the #1 computer company? How was Bill with his MS-DOS able to squash DR DOS? How was Bill with Windows 3.x and 95 able to kill OS/2? What happened to Lotus Notes and Domino? In each of these cases, marketing and the target audience made all of the difference. Microsoft went after the masses with its "Model T" version of everything. While IBM tried to sell superior PS/2 computers to everyone for everything, a typical end-user would not be affected by the additional features of the PS/2, so paying half price for a generic knock off and eventually Dells was a no brainer. MS-DOS.....pure marketing in 1994.....as Microsoft made use of trade magazines and "leaking" inside info on the vaporous DOS 7 product to get people to hold off on bying DR DOS (DR DOS was multitasking when multitasking wasn't cool). MS DOS 7 was never released as a stand-alone product. It was the core of Windows 95 which started selling in August 1995. OS/2 and the Lotus products both followed the PS/2 fate of being "too superior" (i.e. too expensive) for the masses. Sadly, I see the same thing happening with the iSeries and DB/2. Dot Netters will tell you how cool SQL 2005 is with its CLR support. IBM's DB2 for Windows was doing this in 2003. Had I been IBM, my commercials would have had a blast with that. And the iSeries, while it does not support the .Net CLR, all database applications have always had access to every iSeries system resource since the beginning. Now, it's nearly two decades later, and IBM still hasn't seen the light. Young developers and users grow up into the next generation of managers and adults that make the decisions about which computers and software to buy. And I am not sure which IBM chief(s) has directed these strategies of the past, but I am sure that he/she is paid too much. What lessons can be learned here: 1. Marketing is nothing more than cosmetic makeup for a company. It's marketing's role to highlight the strengths and hide the weaknesses. Score Microsoft 1, IBM 0 2. Small companies grow into larger companies. Small SQL servers grow into big SQL servers. Small companies can afford a $2500 Dell server and $4000 worth of software licenses. Score Microsoft 2, IBM 0 3. Young developers (hobbyists and students) don't have much money. They do what they can afford. These developers grow into adults and development managers with money to spend. Then, they do what they can afford and what they know. Microsoft 3, IBM 0 4. You don't drive a Grayhound bus to take one person to the grocery store, and you don't take a caravan of 20 cars to haul 50 people across country at one time. With this analogy, I am purely baffled at how people can even begin to compare Windows with the iSeries.!?!?!? YOU'RE TALKING GRAYHOUNDS AND BMW's!!!! Oh yea, IBM's marketing let us do it. Microsoft 4, IBM 0 At best, IBM should fire anyone in their marketing management structure. If the decision were mine, I would probably sue them as well for pure incompetence.

[mollykj]

IMHO: What Will It Take to Turn the System i Around?

but 'fess up - who are you ?

[R.Daugherty]

IMHO: What Will It Take to Turn the System i Around?

At best, IBM should fire anyone in their marketing management structure. If the decision were mine, I would probably sue them as well for pure incompetence. Here's the problem. They're incompetent from our perspective, but they are doing their job from IBM's perspective. The sooner people understand that IBM's only concern is selling Websphere, and tying people into it so that they have to keep paying for it, the sooner we start talking about reality. Any sales of an AS/400~iseries is purely coincidental, as in these are type i folks to nail with Websphere. In addition, these worthless (to us) IBM'ers have designated the iseries as a small business computer. This is ludicrous and along with Websphere being their product to sell is the other nail in the iseries coffin. This is not a minor philosophical point. They essentially have categorized the AS/400 as a partitioned disk server and are trying to convince small businesses (small in the realm of corporate America, the category is SMB) that this computer is easy to operate and cheap because they don't need admins. The basis for this is "one backup command". However, anybody but a clueless IBM'er knows that putting OS/400, Linux, AIX, and Windows on one box doesn't eliminate the need to admin those operating systems. So the alleged, and when I say alleged remember that IBM has decided this is what the iseries purpose in the world is, the alleged savings are from common virtual partition savings available everywhere, to solve problems Windows and Linux people have with underutilized disk and CPU in their one server for each app world. So it doesn't even apply to us to start with. You will always see IBM and their shills talk about selling the iseries (only as a container for Websphere, by the way) to small business. I could go on, but you get the point. Somehow the AS/400 has been categorized as a System/36 by IBM while real business is slated for IBM's favorites, AIX and Z/OS. This despite the fact that I've worked for several multi-billion dollar companies over the last 12 years running on the AS/400. But you'd never hear that from IBM. It's not in their Websphere marching orders. rd

[bharder@nlrha.ab.ca]

IMHO: What Will It Take to Turn the System i Around?

I have said for some time that a key IBM strength on the iSeries has become a boat anchor. The problem is the backwards compatibility. It's so good that no one actually has to change. Programmers, vendors, software architects, everyone can keep doing things the same old way. Current versions of applications can still use 30 year old interface technology. They often do (not every one of course, but far too many). On a somewhat different note, I remember reading a book about IBM years ago. It talked about the Thomas J. Watsons, both Senior and Junior. It quoted someone whom I believe was TJW Jr. This was back in the mainframe days of Sperry, Burroughs, Honeywell, Control Data and the like. The essence of the quote was that IBM's competitors would repeatedly release computers that were better than IBM's. Nevertheless, IBM would overpower those competitors over and over again. The source of IBM's strength was marketing, service and support. Now Microsoft has taken those historical lessons and triumphed over IBM.

[bharder@nlrha.ab.ca]

IMHO: What Will It Take to Turn the System i Around?

Oh, and something else I forgot. Much of computing is now a commodity, and we have to adjust to that. Sure the iSeries is reliable. But now, so is Windows, Linux, Mac, Solaris, and many others. You think the iSeries value proposition is unchallenged? Look around! I don't think Windows is as reliable or scalable as the iSeries. However a business can get started with a low-end competitive solution for much less than an iSeries. By the time they are hooked and paying much more, it's too late for them to make an easy change. Many businesses consider this "water under the bridge" time, if they consider it at all. The reality is that by the time a business is relying upon a specific computing solution, careers in that business depend upon going forward with that solution. Even database technology is becoming a commodity. Why do you think that overseas outsourcing is so viable? It's a commodity too. The commoditization of our industry is here and it's changing everything. Don't agree with me? Take a look at the glory that was Cray, and Silicon Graphics, and Tandem, and Thinking Machines, and Apollo, and many other high-end computing companies. Cheap, commodity machines have eaten out the bulk of the markets they used to sell to. At the low end, IBM sold off their PC Division to Lenovo to get rid of a commodity business arm.

[JohndeCoville]

IMHO: What Will It Take to Turn the System i Around?

Most purchasing is very price-sensitive (hey campers, this is the age of Costco!). Most buyers are operating like home appraisers: How many bedrooms; how many bathrooms; and a differential for quality. IBM cannot get away with BMW-type pricing. Entry-level systems must be priced to compete with similar systems or companies will use the Windows-based systems as their bottom-rung. When they get big they will stay with whatever they started with freezing IBM out. Meanwhile the Microsoft juggernaut has initiated wave after wave of improvements, outflanking everything that is on the i5. The biggest irony of the past was that former Chairman John Akers ranted in 1991 that IBM had missed the bus on PC-Networks. This is long before the Internet. But by 1991, the media had already coined the term the "PC Explosion." Finally, credit goes to the most visible: The Web Programmers get the most visibility - and prestige, even if the i5 served the data. We've come a long way from the late 80's and early 90's when the users talked about "empowerment" and loved their spreadsheets and Solitaire game. IBM must become more nimble than Microsoft. Microsoft 5, IBM 0. --John

[R.Daugherty]

IMHO: What Will It Take to Turn the System i Around?

And how large is your business you're running on Windows? rd

[J.Pluta]

IMHO: What Will It Take to Turn the System i Around?

Agh. I read these threads and I fight with myself whether to reply or not. On the one hand, I realize that my personal opinion is just that, an opinion, and as such is unlikely to change a lot of minds. Not only that, but just presenting opinions in these or other online forums doesn't really accomplish a lot. My time is really better spent doing things like designing architecturla building blocks and putting together solutions. On the other hand, though, I realize that the sentiments echoed here are often repeated throughout our community, and many of them are not only wrong, they're dangerous. So, at the risk of opening another can of worms, I simply have to respond. Myth Number 1: Programming is a commodity. That's simply not true. This myth is a result of the lack of education in real programming fundamentals in our school systems, fundamentals that are even less represented in the wide variety of "Certification" tests out there. There are curricula in which CS students are taught the latest tools and the latest techniques without regard to these fundamentals, and because of that they don't have a real understanding of what programming really entails. They think that creating a database query using a WYSIWYG GUI builder is the same as designing a business application. As this perpetuates, it's becoming more and more of a problem, because some of the people with that sort of training are now reaching positions of management, and are making decisions for which they are simply not prepared. This manifests itself in the situation in which someone looks at a dedicated Windows machine running a simple web serving application and wonders why the same application doesn't run as fast on an iSeries which costs five times the price. They have no undeerstanding of the benefits of single level storage, integrated security and auditing, multiple save/restore options, and of course an embedded database with direct indexed access. The number of people who think that SQL is a replacement for indexed database access is astonishing, and frightening. Ah, I could go on, but I think it would be better if I put everything together for a real rebuttal piece. But rest assured that a large part of the state of the iSeries lies in the fact that those making the buying decisions are ill-equipped to understand the nature of the business. Anybody who thinks that PHP is a better business development language than RPG doesn't stand a chance of making informed IT decisions. Joe

[OzzieH]

IMHO: What Will It Take to Turn the System i Around?

I certainly cannot disagree with anything you said. Yes it does take valuable time away from your work, but please, write more on the subject. That goes for all of you eloquent writers who wish to save the “box”. I consider myself nothing more than a technician. I am not a guru by any means, but since day one, I’ve never seen a computer to top the iSeries. In fact, I still shake my head sometimes over what it can do---I often think, what CAN’T it do? On a personal note, I surely am selfish in that I don’t want to see my job vanish just because THIS computer disappears. Were I to become unemployed over a lack of skills, it would hurt for sure, but that is a personal issue. But, to lose my job because I am tied to this computer boggles my mind. How did the gulf between business and computing become so large? Has it been reached the point to where unless a computer’s interfaces mimic a centerfold in a “Highlights” magazine, it’s bad for business? It reminds me of the first computer my brother and I bought---a TRS-80, Model 4 (remember those?) My brother’s next door neighbor came over to visit the wife, and upon seeing the computer sitting there (powered off), asked, “Wow---Can you ask it who the First President was?” Sometimes I wonder if that woman is now the CFO of some multi-national company somewhere in these United States. I would not surprise me.

[JohndeCoville]

IMHO: What Will It Take to Turn the System i Around?

We have about 150+ Miscorsoft SQL-2000 servers and another bunch of SQL-2005 servers on what is still quite shaky. But we have have several iSeries Computers and I am one of 7 S.A's on those machines. Our systems right now are the central spine of the mission-critical business model for my Employer. One platform one we call "POQUITO" that we use as the development environment (and its predecoessor) has had one disk crash in almost 10 years and since we are RAID-5, there were no problems. ELGRANDE has more reliability than almost anything else made. We also have RS6000's. One supports the Sheriff's office and Emergency Responders. But I want you to know that the Microsoft Servers are putting in a stellar job of reliability, but, of course, you get what you pay for and we have top quality servers, period. I have been frustrated by IBM's slow pace of improving DB2. In SQL-2000, for example, I can place an index on a view for both select -set processing as well as record-based processing. I am frustrated that IBM's attitude has changed management from being very pro-IBM. My employer has 2,200 employees plus a number of contract employees and direct consultants. We are growing fast. I liked your point, Ralph, about large entities running on AS/400's. I had a tour of Ford Motor back in the late 80's when they were running their entire enterprise on a token-ring of 400 System 38's. Another area where IBM has shot itself in the foot is by raising the bar so high to developers that they gravitate over to windows. There just aren't too many new packages for sale. The developers are creating for MS-Windows which you may consider inferior -- but MS has greased the skids to a tidal-wave of development. Microsoft, a vendor to IBM learned from IBM all too well. They copied or co-opted much more innovative solutions and then polished them, and gave them massive and skilled sales support. By the way, the System 38 AND the PC are several of IBM's really great creations. I'm sorry IBM starved the '38 then lost interest in the '400. Ralph, I have been too many times to COMMON and noted the gray hair. I am, myself, 60. the biggest money I ever made was not with my 34's, 36's, 38's or the 400 but my tacked-together WEB-based catelog services. --so Thanks! ----John

[mollykj]

IMHO: What Will It Take to Turn the System i Around?

So. . . . 150 Microsoft SQL-2000 servers and "several" iSeries with 7 support analysts. Any more support staff on the iSeries side besides the analysts ? And how many support staff for those SQL2000 servers ? How long does an upgrade to software running on all those SQL2000 servers take ? How often ? Or is the pain of upgrade so bad, its simply not done ? How much productivity is delivered ? How expandable in users supported are these SQL2000 servers ? Or do you just buy more SQL200 servers to support more users ? I could go on. . . .but its probably getting boring by this time. Microsoft has "won" this market because new technies in the field think this money-drain method is the only method. Besides, what better job security could you find?

[S.ODonnell]

IMHO: What Will It Take to Turn the System i Around?

It reminds me of the first computer my brother and I bought---a TRS-80, Model 4 (remember those?) My brother’s next door neighbor came over to visit the wife, and upon seeing the computer sitting there (powered off), asked, “Wow---Can you ask it who the First President was?” ................ Well? Could you ask it that? Reminds me of the time I dup'd the SIGNOFF command and called it "BYE". So everytime I logged off, I'd just type "BYE" on a command line. One of our Buyers saw me logging off and was simply amazed, "Bye?!?!? BYE?!?!? You told it BYE?!?!?!" I didn't have the heart to drive the stake through the heart on that one as she was so earnest, so I just shook my head and left.

[R.Daugherty]

IMHO: What Will It Take to Turn the System i Around?

Thanks for the info, John. I have to get to work and can't respond fully right now, but on the aspersion to RPG programmers as aging point, a "COMMON is graying" basis is as I said, no basis at all. You'd have to know which ones are programmers and which are, like yourself, aging but not an RPG programmer, or for that matter a full time programmer at all. Again, emphasis on the programmer job is because of your baseless and incorrect generalization of RPG programmers as different than for other computers and languages. Windows predates the AS/400, and yes, I and many others were programming on Windows before 1989. I moved to the AS/400 and RPG in 1989. Guess what those Windows programmers have done in the meantime? They've gotten a little older too. Look around your own company, as I have seen in the places I've been, and the RPG programmers are not a distinguishable subset of IT as yours and other repeaters of stereotype with no basis in fact statements attest. As to new programmers coming into the iseries and RPG, you have to have jobs for someone to come into it and there have been few and far between, and what few jobs there have been have specified years of experience in specific vendor products. So no, no one is going to be able to move into our programming ranks like that. On the other hand, should wiser heads prevail and the iseries understood to be the bastion of enterprise computing that it is, then good people can move into RPG in a matter of weeks, just as I and everyone else did. There are other points about Windows versus OS/400 I want to make, but I've got to pay the rent first. rd

[R.Daugherty]

IMHO: What Will It Take to Turn the System i Around?

Ok, OS/400 vs. Windows, RPG vs. VB/C#. These are not comparable, they are different solutions for different, co-existing, compatible requirements. One does not win, one lose. They fill different needs. The iseries should be the preferred solution when security, work management, integration, and dozens or hundreds of users require it. If you can get by without it, then you don't need it. I submit that all those schools and government agencies that are hacked need it. Every business running around the clock needs it. Every government and health organization with failed attempts at new software systems in the last few years needs it. From what I'm reading, that's just about all of them. It is not for small business. Windows is. Different spaces, different solutions. rd

[JohndeCoville]

IMHO: What Will It Take to Turn the System i Around?

Thank you for reminding me that I omitted support personel. We have Server support, iSeries support and many of those are cross-trained. Customer Support is now a large enterprise. The iSeries computers continue to be the "Maytags" but lacking good GUI. Each MS Server has a "go-to" person for those applications. They support the platform and are sometimes good at administring the software but in no way are programmers or even good T-SQL types. Customer support has about 25-28 employees. Server support about 12 and this is rapidly growing. MS SQL vendors often have very un-normalized data Base design forcing some of us (not me) to design "Cubes" to translate this data into something that the trained end-users can use in templates or Crystal. The worst aspect of this is that the solution is often not available across all workstations. Sometimes even "Read-only" access comes with a cost. We are on more and more MS-Based apps because even our IBM Rep is only referencing Windows-based applications ... !!! A major consultant, Gartner, which gave the AS/400 the "Green" light changed that to amber three years ago and now to red. Thank you, --John