Paul, I have to believe you are in your twenties. You did not live through the things you write about. Still, it is hard for me to believe that one person could be so adamant yet so uninformed about recent history. Also your first paragraph makes no sense whatsoever.
So you work there...do you run or try to keep Information Services together or are you a user? See the problem here is that the "USER" of the "USERrevolution" (what a joke) wants "empowerment" but will just sit there staring at a blank screen if Windows doesn't start when they turn on the power. And not give a damn about how much that is costing the company.
When you say, "Nobody ran around wringing their hands praying for the return of the mainframe.", Ok, so what. In your opinion that was the only alternative then. How long ago was this? Were NCs an option then? No? I didn't think so. Why don't you describe the financial impact of "alway had minor hiccups".
Nobody is talking about the "Return of the Mainframe". We are talking about return of sanity. LANs full of PCs very often are the horror movie. Unstructured, unmanageable systems with very few standards for either hardware or software decrease productivity of both the user and the support team. PCs were NOT designed to be NETWORKED. "Oh, but my Compaq came with an Ethernet card..." That is not what I mean. Think like an engineer. The network is a SYSTEM. PCs are not designed to be part of it. What do you think MS was trying to do with their Back Office management software? The problem with that response is that it is just stacking more crap on top of an already overloaded system.
I can't believe you asked me such a question as "Did I ever wonder..." try to think outside the box you have built for yourself here Paul. You log in to a central server or set of servers each day right? What the hell do you or the secretarial pool care if your word processor runs as a Java applet residing halfway around the world (or on the server in the basement)or from an overblown "suite" residing on a local hard-drive. I dare you to prove to me that even 30% of any group of users even knows... or cares.
The terminal/mainframe SNA architecture was superceeded in a segment of the market because of the low performance TERMINALS and IBM's refusal (inability)to advance the system. By far the largest growth of PC's was into a NEW market segment that NEVER HAD computers before, the HOME and small business that COULD NOT AFFORD a mainframe or a midrange. This is why there are so many PCs. The market GREW. Not because structured architectures or centralized management were a bad idea.
Why did PCs become so powerful? Two reasons: Lets think about the timeframe in which the PC came to life. There was no such thing as a networked world as we are just about to have. PCs HAD to be fully capable by themselves because there was NO ONE ELSE THEY COULD TALK TO. The second is simple...upgrades. Computers don't wear out. Bill Gates himself once said that MS exists to sell upgrades. Intel loves it. The computer manf's love it. Your management and accounting dep't hate it.
Network Computers provide enough of a multimedia user desktop along WITH the ease and maintainability of a centralized system. AND only the SERVER needs to be upgraded to add more capabilities. If you care to find out more about it, NCs very often run off a central MS NT SERVER. Which, BTW, run on Intel, DEC, and maybe even... mainframes.
The era of the PC in business and possibly the home is closing. The business will change first because of the economics. Get a new sheet of paper please and redraw to fit todays world.
But you don't have to believe me... just wait.
AND just so you know... I did NOT grow up on mainframes. UNIX and PC's.
We will be able to separate the users from MIS from Intel investors by the responses this is sure to generate.
Scott |
