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

[J.Pluta]

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

So, this one issue which you can't recall occurred sometime in 2004, not the middle of 2003. It was serious enough to cause you to scrap the tool entirely and you even have information that confirms that the tool failed, but you didn't actually document the problem. Okay, fair enough. I guess we can just take that scenario at face value and move on. I think Molly's call for recent experiences is a good one. Joe

[J.Pluta]

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

"If there is anyone who has been following this discussion who has direct experience with VARPG, I personally - and I'm sure others - would love to hear your take on the product as it stands today." Me too, Molly! In fact, if I can ever free up some spare moments, I may try to play with it myself. Obviously, my take would be limited to VARPG and won't be a comparison to ASNA, but it's better than conjecture, which is much of what we have at this point. Joe

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

OK. I searched our system regarding that project and found information that confirms that it was in the beginning of 2004 that I had a problem I couldn't resolve. Like I stated previously, the problem was that I couldn't make the file open dialog do what I needed it to do. (I realize that the description of the problem is too vague for you to accept but I can't do any better than that.) In my attempt to overcome the obstacle (with the file open dialog) I looked at everything I could find on the IBM websites related to VARPG and I tried to get technical support from IBM via their website and through our service provider. I wasn't the only person here trying to get technical support and we couldn't get answers when we needed them (in 2004). We looked for training for VARPG and couldn't find that. And I could find only two IBM manuals (redbook and developers guide) and one book (Visual Age for RPG by Example - Meyers & Sutherland) for the tool. We have had better technical support from IBM in other areas and we recently had another good experience. We just couldn't get it for VARPG. OK, I should have said that in the first quarter of 2004 ASNA's tool and support was better than IBM's concerning VARPG. It certainly was my experience and after that I stopped checking.

[mollykj]

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

Yes, I am absolutely sure the VARPG product function and support has improved. I don't think greenacre was dissing IBM; he was just relating his own experiences and offering an option to the original author of this article - at least that's how I read it at the time. As to lack of more current experience with VARPG, I agree. However, as many of us know, once you've started on a particular path for learning and using a tool in your shop, the investment in time and money makes it difficult to justify using other tools - especially if there were problems with them the first time you tried it out. If there is anyone who has been following this discussion who has direct experience with VARPG, I personally - and I'm sure others - would love to hear your take on the product as it stands today.

[J.Pluta]

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

Molly, my point is not meant to be sarcastic, simply realistic. I like to pull the spin out of things and cut to the heart of the matter. Which in this case is simple: whether or not the poster's reminiscences are accurate they are no longer relevant, since he has no idea what the product or the support is like today. To make the statement that ASNA is a better product and ASNA support is better than IBM's without pointing out that his experiences are four years out of date is a little bit misleading. Leaving out pertinent information like that turns a valid comment into a product pitch. I can tell you that RIGHT NOW, the support for WDSC is probably the best I've ever seen from any part of the IBM organization. While I haven't personally had any experience VARPG issues, I'd be willing to wager that a question to the team won't take eight months for a response. In fact, I'm certain it would be a matter of days if not hours. What Gary Greenacre may or may not have experienced four years ago is hardly a basis for judging the product today. Joe

[boomer400]

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

Ralph, I agree with you to some extent but have to say that TPMs proposal has merit in that it at least tries to bring the iBox to very small businesses or even nascent businesses. The 20 user capped 520 is the same setup but forgets to include DB2 Query and SQL for some silly reason. There's not much point nowadays to not including those items as any system with 20 users has access to virtually free development tools with SQL builtin. Anyhow, I still believe that the iBoxes' relative lack of presence in the smaller ranks of gear is the main reason why few people bother to acknowledge it as a player in the "modern" IT environment. It retains respect at the higher level simply because there aren't any giant systems around to compete against it. These small iBox configuration attempts are tacit admissions that IBM Sales and IBM management have ignored the seed group to the point where few people starting a new business regard the iBox as a good starting point. BTW, I don't know if anyone has bothered to look at those entry/growth level 520s and 550s on the IBM website; they post the names of the companies (mostly European it seems) who package their software as part of the deal. However, there aren't any links to those companies or their software so who is know what that software does or costs. Seems rather shortsighted to me.

[mollykj]

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

I should give greenacre a chance to respond to your sarcastical observations but I have one question to ask you and in all fairness I believe it deserves your serious consideration: If you're working on a business-critical or important project (since Gary had to do a re-write I assume it was at least an important project since they didn't just drop it) and the technical tools you are using for the first time do not appear able to provide the result you need and you are not getting any support from the MAKER of the tool, what would you do ? Even if he missed something in the process (which we've all done at times and we don't even know that happened here), due to LACK OF SUPPORT from IBM he couldn't get the project done. Real World, Joe, we've got to get the projects done. I would have done the same thing in his position - find something that worked and had a support staff capable of, uh, you know, supporting. So, what would YOU have done ?

[R.Daugherty]

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

TMP has always been the best writer on the AS/400~iseries through the years. If he had been the AS/400 product manager we wouldn't be in the shape we're in. Nevertheless, the information confirms my bottom line. The IBM announcement he is trying to salvage is for an iseries limited to 20 users and they have to buy Websphere (and an ERP package from SAP or Oracle JDE). They have decided that this computer is their way to sell Websphere to 20 people. It's niched as Websphere for small companies. The smallest company on the AS/400 I've ever worked for had more than 20 people on the AS/400. Reminds me of IBM telling people what size hard drives they could have in their PS/2 models 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70. The chuckleheads behind that apparently were "rewarded" with a stint on the iseries merry-go-round. rd

[J.Pluta]

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

I'm just trying to get at the facts, which as far as I can glean are these: You couldn't do something critical, but it was so long ago you don't remember what it was. You have no idea who you talked to and you didn't get a response for eight months. Based on that, you feel qualified to say that ASNA's tool is better than something you haven't worked with in three or four years, and that their technical staff is better than people you haven't communicated with in that same time period. Joe

[boomer400]

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

Thanks, Molly, I guess I should be a little more specific with regards to the "maximum current environment the i5/OS is capable of"; I didn't mean to imply that it's lacking by comparison as a heavy duty server to other server OSs. We here all know that's certainly not true. However, it is also true that it doesn't do some things which ought to be simple very well or at least very easily. Some of it is by design and some by planning. For instance, the IOP issue mentioned in the thread; it seems to me that there is nothing inherently wrong in keeping the IOP architecture except that for any new gear you would have to build and design new IOPs; so for certain things like USB support or native graphics support, IBM would have to build specialized IOPs. Perhaps, I'm totally wrong on that but I suspect it would be awfully expensive. On the other hand, certain hardware which is commonly used in the entire world ought to be deployed on an iBox. USB, SATA, flash drives, etc. ought to be available as a standard. Maybe, even that dreaded phrase, "native GUI", ooooh! Again, it's primarily a matter of perception; we all know that certain technical advantages occur in any platform and that the iBox is perfectly capable of outperforming most other platforms. BUT, we're not trying to be purely technically competitive, just having beans to beans equality. So let's not get caught up in trying to match up OS and boxes strictly, for instance, is this a green lima bean compared to a green string bean. An iBox should be comparable to most other systems which happen to support things like native GUI, USB, flash drives, blah, blah, blah.

[nandelin]

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

David Abramowitz wrote: In most cases it should only take one individual to pick up the box and move it 180 degrees.

Thanks for the chuckle, David. It was refreshing. But it also led to pondering. I'm one individual. And sometimes I see myself doing things that are 180 degrees opposite of what IBM is doing. While IBM has been focusing on J2EE Web interfaces, I've been focusing on native Web interfaces. While IBM has been working on leviathan client-based development tools, I've been working on light-weight server based development tools. There's no comparison between the scope of what IBM has been doing, and what I've been doing, of course. IBM's scope is huge. My scope is limited to ILE languages and the native environment. IBM still does some native development, but in many ways, I see IBM and Microsoft and most other companies going in the same direction, albeit different implementations (distributed server architecture, paired with thick client architecture), while my view of an ideal architecture is in the pairing of a single integrated centralized server like the I5 with thin-rich GUI clients. Nathan.

[mollykj]

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

There's IBM's missing marketing idea - someone send this to whomever is heading up the System i marketing division ! Seriously, I couldn't disagree with most of your ideas, but I have to take issue with the comment about the "max current environment the i5os is capable of" - let me just say the "MS" empire has nothing that the System i, i5/os, iSeries, whatever couldn't handle. As one earlier writer mentioned, IBM keeps dialing DOWN the power of the box depending on where their placing it. TPM is right - their pricing sucks and as long as their marketing strategy is reflected in their pricing policies, the "iBox-by-any-other-name" will continue to fadeeeeeeee awaayyyyyy.

[boomer400]

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

TPMs System iWant is pretty nice and a great idea; it ought to be done. However, it's limited to the maximum current environment that i5/OS is capable of right now which I'm not sure is enough to break into the MS empire. Part of the discussion has revolved around technical aspects of comparing i5 vs. Windows and GUI/Vx vs. green screen/RPG/Wdsc/etc. I think while all of those arguments are legitimate and useful, they are limited to the pure technical aspects, especially for us in the iBox side. Most of us come from technical backgrounds and our vision can be framed by those experiences. However, I think part of the issue is that purely technical realities have little to do with perception. And the generic civilian groupthink of iBoxes is generally negative or not at all; it has nothing to do with performance, reliability, or even technical aspects of the system. For instance, I have a "grayhair" relative running a large environment now almost entirely MS, with a few small Unix boxes. They had until recently a 6xx series running some payroll and accounting but that had been put in archival state for some years. Originally, it was a mainstay. Finally, earlier this year, they put it to rest. The reason, it was old and newer versions cost too much and no one knew how to handle it because the 1 guy who knew iBox had retired a year ago. He didn't even bother to look at a new system because the MS boxes had crept in and slowly usurped the iBox usefulness in a few years. Whoever sold them the original box and software never really tried to sell him a new platform or upgrades. So, for this guy, the technical aspects were purely secondary. He knew the system was very tough, reliable, and not ridiculously expensive. But he knew he had MS and Unix guys in his shop and it was just too much trouble to build a new iBox environment. That was it. How is IBM going to overcome these perceptions? It's not just a case of "slapping" on a fancy GUI, or selling a box that never breaks or has to be rebooted only 1 time a year. They're going to have to do something more. I don't know what it is but if a guy who is a "grayhair" vet of mainframes, midranges and now MSx is perfectly willing to ignore a great potential in his shop, IBM definitely has its' work cut out for itself. My opinion is that by limiting the iBox to only the financial environment, IBM is hobbling itself. The problem is not that the iBox doesn't do enough or isn't good enough; I think that the real issue is that MS and others have brought their stuff up to snuff and that their stuff is not purely horrible anymore. Their stuff frankly is competitive especially at the lower end where the fresh legions of developers and users are exposed to machines. TPMs' article is good but doesn't go far enough. He should include a lossleader system that is ridiculously cheap and does some really funky stuff (for instance, serious music, video, and game serving) that no one in the current community does. It shouldn't be aimed at the financial guys or RPG guys or the current community. It should have his outrageous performance specs plus some more. Aim it at college campuses, tech schools, etc. Remember, IBM's not selling it us; that's preaching to the choir. They need to sell it to someone who had no idea of what the heck an iBox is, just what it does or is going to do. Just my 2 cents; sorry for the long post!

[tleach@sierrapine.com]

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

Hi Everyone! I just wanted to share a great article that I read that was written by Timothy Prickett Morgan, and it is titled "The System iWant, 2007 Edition". It is located on the ITJungle website. The link to this: http://www.itjungle.com/tfh/tfh120406-story01.html. This is one of the best iSeries marketing ideas I have read about in a long time. I just wanted to share it with this group since marketing is one of the hot topics. Tony

[R.Daugherty]

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

Thanks, John. I agree with you and Tom Daly's opinion, and mollykj and others. The only way the iseries will ever get marketed in terms of: an object based virus-proof advanced i5/OS operating system with - 64 bit single level store program space - superior Notes and Java server performance - embedded DB2 Universal database with both SQL and record level I/O - concurrent web server, 5250 interactive, and X-Windows - advanced work managment with job queues, data queues, spool files - concurrent ILE RPG, COBOL, C++, CL with Java, PHP, Perl, and Python - advanced BI query indexing - and multiple concurrent partitions running all major midrange server operating systems (i5/OS~OS/400, Unix, Linux, and Windows) will be when IBM quits trying to niche their computers so no one's feelings will be hurt. The iseries is niched as a small business computer, geeeee whiz easy with one backup command. That's their brain dead marching orders, and IBM'ers care more about their personal careers than some stinkin computer they rename every year. If they follow the orders, they'll be rewarded with a move somewhere else anyway. rd

---

Code