The authors miss the point of the question posed. The question isn't "Are we going back to the traditional model?" The question is: "Are we moving back to the model of consolidated processing and datacenters as typified by the mainframe model?"
Re: The return to mainframe computing?.
I assert that we are primarily due to:
-- The comparative higher costs (power, people, real estate) of maintaining distributed systems.
-- Related to above, the drastically higher costs (comparatively) for managing security in a distributed environment.
-- The drastic comparative reduction in cost of the mainframe.
-- The drastic increase in functionality of the mainframe.
A word to the wise: Don't get caught trying to argue this trend away - and don't assume for a moment that mainframe systems have lessened their role in our current IT environment.
Latest convergence headlines from Network World:
Sun updates xVM virtualization software
|
Does Verizon's Voyager stack up to the iPhone? |
|
|
5 IT skills that won't boost your salary 
[1,407]
Women 4 times more likely than men to cough up personal info [589]
Japan's 10 funniest tech-related commercials [Videos] [407]
Throwing away a promo CD is "unauthorized distribution"? [1,265]
Adults too quick to dismiss educational video games [682]
Attack of the iPhone clones [Slideshow] [578]
10 things IT needs to know about AJAX [1,258]
This Year's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries [Slideshow] [409]
|
|
Glass House Environment-Return?
Who ever wrote this article either wasn't there in the 80's or doesn't know what they are talking about. He speaks of no connectivity between between desktops or laptops to the mainframe.
If so what the hell was the IBM PC3270, ERMA, Peacock or Attachmate if they weren't PC to Mainframe connectivity? Compass the first Lap Top did connect to IBM Mainframes through connectivity features. Many IBM mid level processors in the 8000 line did stand a lone processing and mainframe pass through to the mainframe with the results using dumb terminals.
IBM VM did have the ability to handle peer to peer processing with other processors ie PCs on world wide basis.
Yes, We in the dark ages did presentations and sent them world wide from PC to PC using peer to peer connectivity IBM based message processing sent over 9600 baud rate because that was all we had from MA Bell and we did it very efficiently.
The centralized processing rooms have gone but this concept is still the cheapest and fastest way to handle bulk data processing within a safe and secure environment while providing a platform for instant Business Recovery after a Katrina if proper planning is instituted.
Fitz
dumb terminal????
Anyone who thinks that the 3270 was a *dumb* terminal knows SQUAT about the mainframe.
The 3270 series terminals were intelligent devices which were an integral part of an environment which allowed low-powered mainframes to service thousands of on-line users. You can think of it as an early form of client-server.
Now, serial terminals like the ADM-3A, the VT series and Wyse terminals which all hung off of VAXes and Unix machines were dumb. Very dumb. The host had to handle every user's every keystroke.
3270 terminals not quite so "dumb"
Agreed, the 3270 terminal prootcols looked alot like the early days of the Mosaic webbrowser capability - I know because I was there -- looking at the spec for the 3270 formatting protocol and comparing it to html. The parallels were amazing but the compelling technology was TCP/IP -- we were desparate to get away from SNA.
There are many mainframe scoffers out there - and these are the ones who ignore the fact that the mainframes of today "ain't your Daddy's mainframe".