Dying Architectures

[Doug Pardee]

[why is this here instead of net.arch?]

> the whole IBM mainframe
> line is architecturally right where it started--in the mid-'60's.  That
> they have such a huge installed base in spite of a crippled architecture
> (like a 4K forward-only offset in instructions) is a tribute to IBM's
> marketing, sales, and support organizations--certainly not to the
> architecture of their machines.

Not to take anything away from IBM's very strong marketing, sales, and
support organizations, but...

Something else that IBM understands is that the CUSTOMER is the most
important person there is, and that the customer wants results; the
customer doesn't give a hang about computer architecture and systems
programming languages.  The customer wants a machine that'll run his
telecommunications network and his database.  The customer wants a
machine that will run his programming staff's COBOL programs.  He 
doesn't give a *hoot* if the operating system is written in assembler,
PL/S, or C, or how many registers and addressing modes the CPU supports.
-- 
Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {calcom1,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug