Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!styx!ames!cit-vax!news
From: news@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Usenet netnews)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Mainframes vs micros
Message-ID: <1397@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Date: Sun, 21-Dec-86 20:54:04 EST
Article-I.D.: cit-vax.1397
Posted: Sun Dec 21 20:54:04 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Dec-86 23:36:03 EST
References: <653@imsvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: tim@tomcat.UUCP (Tim Kay)
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 124
Summary: I agree, but you miss the point!

Organization : California Institute of Technology
Keywords: mainframes
From: tim@tomcat.Caltech.Edu (Tim Kay)
Path: tomcat!tim

[ Before we continue, I realize that the subject here is slightly
  tangent to the recent typical use of this newsgroup.  If you
  feel that it is inappropriate here, let us know.  I believe
  that it is a reasonable topic in the grander scope of this
  newsgroup, as it addresses the future of PC's versus mainframes.

				Tim
]

In article <653@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes:
>
>Tim Kay of Caltech writes:
>
>>(Ted Holden) writes:
>>>The clones cost about half or a third what IBM's do and they (the
>>>clones) don't break.  IBM must be wishing they'd never heard the words
>>>"PC" or "micro-computer" along about now.  Without IBM's interference,
>
>>Next, I can't see how PCs are competing with minis and mainframes.  An
>>80[23]86 at 8 or even 16Mhz still doesn't pack a fraction of the
>>computing power of a Vax 11/780.  And, for the work I do, a Vax is
>>a small machine.  A 3090/400 is roughly 50 times as powerful.
>
>If your name is John Rockafeller and you go out and purchase a 3090 as
>YOUR personal computer, then and only then does your argument make any
>
>The comparison is between a mainframe and a system of micros.  Four years ago
>there may have been some break-even point beyond which the multi-user machine
>was cheaper on a per user basis; now it isn't even close.  A good 8mh XT compat
>
>As I see it, the day of the expensive computer is about over.  It is only for
>super-computer applications such as weather forecasting and really big database
>applications that they could be justified at all any more, and the small
>machines will be capable of those activities in another couple of years.

I agree completely with you that, IF you want to do word processing
or spreadsheets or program development, then micros (specifically
IBM PC's and compatibles) are MUCH nicer than mainframes.  They may
not always be more practical, though.

	1.  typically response time is usually far better on PC's
	2.  software on PC's is far better than on mainframes
	3.  PC's hardware is more "efficient" -- per mips or
	    flops a PC costs less than a mainframe

Your main premise is that the majority of computer usage in
this country has to do with personal computer type of
usage.  This is simply not the case.  As PC's became available,
people haven't moved
existing work off of mainframes onto PC's.  They have created
new work to be done, or they have automated tasks that used
to be done by hand.  The work that the mainframes used to
do is still being done on mainframes.

	Nobody used a spreadsheet program until
	there were (Apple) personal computers.

I would guess that 99% of the computer applications that most people
are aware of account for a tiny fraction of the total computer usage
in the world (or even this country).  IBM's bread and butter is derived
from selling computers for uses which most people wouldn't even begin to
imagine.

As an example, "Communications of the ACM" last year or the
year before did a case study of the TWA reservation system.
The article said (I am recalling from memory) that the
computer system handles about _seven_million_transactions_
_each_day_.  This is a fundamentally different way of using
computers than you were considering above.

There is no possible way that personal computers will ever be
able to do this sort of thing.  (Why would you want them to?)

Databases of this type are very common among large companies.
I would guess that
IBM makes as much profit selling a half dozen 3090's as they
do selling an entire year's worth of PC's.
(And they sell many hundreds of 3090's.)
I will look up actual numbers if you are interested.

To summarize, you are right that, for the limited applications
that you selected, PC's are better.  However, they represent
only a very tiny piece of the total computer-usage pie.

For other reasons,
I do believe that IBM has seen its best days.  This is only
indirectly due to the advent of personal computers.  In
general, the science of software development has developed
over the last couple of decades so that software manufacturer's
are finally capable of writing software that is relatively
independent of the underlying computer architecture.  This
means that other hardware vendors can once again innovate
and still be able to sell hardware to companies that are
currently using IBM machines.  Therefore, I think that IBM's
market share will erode very slowly over the next decade
or two until IBM takes the status of Univac or Burroughs.

This is unless they do something drastic, which I don't
currently see them doing.  Think about it:  what was the
last new innovation that IBM marketed?  When was the
last time they went out on a limb?
Since they introduced the S/360 architecture, they haven't
done anything first.  They introduced the RT as a reaction
to Sun and Apollo.  They added the vector feature to the
3090 as a reaction to Cray.  They added the PC as a reaction
to Apple (and in that one case, their reputation helped them.
They also got lucky).  Everything else they sell simply
services their customers that are locked in because of
compatibility concerns.

For this reason, and not because of PC's, is IBM's stock
becoming shaky.

I look forward to reading other opinions.

Timothy L. Kay				tim@csvax.caltech.edu
Department of Computer Science
Caltech, 256-80
Pasadena, CA  91125