Microsoft A Monopoly? Legal Focus Is On 'Intent' IBD article
investors.com
------------------------------------------------------------
The Mainframe Could Provide Year 2000 Edge
Date: 7/28/98
Author: Matt Krantz
Max Watson, chief executive of Houston-based BMC Software Inc., has some good news and some bad news.
First the good news: The Year 2000 problem, in which computers read the year 2000 as 1900, is overstated.
Now the bad: Newer back-office systems running software from companies like Germany's SAP AG and PeopleSoft Corp. are less stable than their ''outdated'' counterparts running on mainframes.
These back-office software installations are otherwise known as enterprise resource planning systems.
Watson's BMC makes software that keeps corporate systems - including ERP systems -running. The software even strives to determine when a system will fail.
Watson recently spoke with IBD about the Year 2000 problem and ERP systems.
IBD:
How serious is the Year 2000 bug?
Watson:
I think it's overblown. Yes, it's a real problem for some. But it's being overblown by people who provide (computer) services and consulting. I'm going to wake up Jan. 1, 2000, and the world's still going to be spinning around just like it is today.
IBD:
Are mainframe systems more likely to crash than ERP systems?
Watson:
No. Remember that (when installing) ERP, (companies) often reengineered their business processes at the same time. They've changed the way they do business to be more efficient.
But the mainframe was simple. All you had was a big processor with wires coming out that were connected to relatively dumb terminals. You had a defined network and a big computer.
IBD:
What's so complicated about ERP?
Watson:
With ERP, you've got many computers spread around on a wide-area network, with all kinds of things hooked up to them. You have more components.
It's not that PeopleSoft software itself is less stable than a human-resources system on a mainframe. You just have more components . . . so the chance for failure goes up.
It's the same reason automakers try to reduce (the number of) parts (in cars). There's less chance of a failure. The more components you've got, the more chance for failure. It's a statistical fact.
IBD:
Do companies have trouble keeping their worldwide ERP systems running?
Watson:
It is hard to get the ystem) availability people want, which is around the clock and around the globe. When something does croak on them, they need to get it back up and running quickly, whether the server's in New York City, Singapore or Portugal. This is even more complex with a large company that may have hundreds of servers, or even hundreds of thousands of servers.
Something is always screwing up. So many things can happen: a database gets corrupted, users might unplug things or a cable might get cut with a backhoe.
And workers aren't the only ones to be affected when a system fails. When the system's down, it costs the company money and costs them customers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
