I enjoyed a recent article by Ken Milberg in IBM System Magazine's Mainframe EXTRA called "The Gen Xer's Guide to the Mainframe Part II". You can see the article at www.ibmsystemsmag.com/mainframe/enewsletterexclusive/20679p1.aspx.
Generation Xers, Ken tells us, are those born after 1964, and, according to Wikipedia, before 1982. The article lists the benefits of mainframes as discovered by a fictional 41 year-old IT Director. In the article the cost efficiency of the mainframe is explored.
Ben, the fictional IT Director, discovers a number of reasons why the mainframe could save money when compared with distributed systems. He finds the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for a mainframe is better than for distributed systems. He highlights maintenance, energy, cooling, design and architecture of networks, staffing woes, and the inability of IT to properly manage the proliferation of distributed systems, as bad news for distributed systems. He also mentions important topics such as security, back-ups, and disaster recovery as areas where distributed systems are weaker than mainframes.
In terms of risk management and compliance (SOX and all those other regulations that apply nationally, internationally, and at the local level) the mainframe wins again. He also mentions licensing software as a problem for distributed systems.
The article also highlights research by Arcati (www.arcati.com - the people responsible for the Arcati Mainframe Yearbook) suggesting that by 2010 mainframe costs would be 25% of Windows server costs and 33% of Unix server costs.
Milberg suggests that with a mainframe, a new system could be configured in a few minutes, whereas a distributed system could take days.
He concludes by saying, "the mainframe provided everything that the distributed systems couldn't: security, reliability and dependability, breathtaking performance, manageability, and rock-solid support from a vendor with more than 40 years of experience with the product."
All this and it runs Java. I'm obviously totally in agreement, and looking forward to part III of this article.
Sunday, 22 June 2008
Sunday, 15 June 2008
Gloomy news for IMS?
The Virtual IMS Connection (www.virtualims.com) user group recently surveyed IMS users about IMS and their plans for the future. The results were published last week during at their user group meeting. And the results make interesting reading for anyone involved with IMS either as a systems programmer, software vendor, or user.
The survey was carried out from the middle of April to the middle of May this year and included results from 45 different sites representing 38 different organizations in 10 different countries. Most sites were still using V9, but a third of respondents had at least one machine running the new V10. Over two thirds of the sites were fairly big, running over 100 databases.
The survey asked whether new IMS applications were being developed at respondents’ sites. The good news was that just over half said "yes", the bad news is that it was only just over half the sites that said "yes". Just under half said "no".
The survey also asked whether respondents had plans to retire IMS applications. Out of 44 replies, 25 said "no", but a disappointingly high number (19) said "yes". It then asked whether respondents planned to migrate data from IMS to another database. Again, out of 44 respondents 25 said "no", and 19 said "yes", with 13 respondents (29.5%) answering "yes" to both question. This must be a worry for IBM and software vendors producing IMS-related software because it looks like nearly half the current IMS user base could disappear. In addition, there is little evidence from elsewhere suggesting that any sites are migrating to IMS.
How quickly are these sites planning to retire applications or migrate data? Looking at the 19 sites planning to migrate data, five (26.3%) planned to migrate data to other databases in less than a year, nine (47.4%) planned the migration in 1-5 years, and five sites (26.3%) weren’t expecting to migrate for at least five years.
With Web services and Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) being important in the development of modern applications, the survey asked how far respondents had gone in the development of SOA at their sites. 17 sites (38.6%) said that System z participates partly in Web services with 10 sites (22.7%) saying that System z participates fully in Web services. Two sites (4.5%) said that their mainframe will be Web-enabled in the future. But seven sites (15.9%) that said their mainframe applications did not participate in Web services and they didn’t intend to implement mainframe Web services. Eight respondents weren’t sure what was happening at their site.
The survey results are not all gloom. On the one hand it is encouraging to see that at over half the sites surveyed new IMS applications are being developed, but it is worrying to see that at over 40% of sites IMS applications are being retired and data from IMS is being migrated to other databases.
Is management sometimes unaware of the value of IMS to the organization? Is there a problem of finding young, but experienced IMS staff? Is it just management is being lured away from the mainframe to distributed computing? The good news from this survey is that there are still plenty of IMS sites that are embracing SOA and moving forward using the product. The bad news, of course, is that these sites seem to be getting fewer and fewer.
The survey was carried out from the middle of April to the middle of May this year and included results from 45 different sites representing 38 different organizations in 10 different countries. Most sites were still using V9, but a third of respondents had at least one machine running the new V10. Over two thirds of the sites were fairly big, running over 100 databases.
The survey asked whether new IMS applications were being developed at respondents’ sites. The good news was that just over half said "yes", the bad news is that it was only just over half the sites that said "yes". Just under half said "no".
The survey also asked whether respondents had plans to retire IMS applications. Out of 44 replies, 25 said "no", but a disappointingly high number (19) said "yes". It then asked whether respondents planned to migrate data from IMS to another database. Again, out of 44 respondents 25 said "no", and 19 said "yes", with 13 respondents (29.5%) answering "yes" to both question. This must be a worry for IBM and software vendors producing IMS-related software because it looks like nearly half the current IMS user base could disappear. In addition, there is little evidence from elsewhere suggesting that any sites are migrating to IMS.
How quickly are these sites planning to retire applications or migrate data? Looking at the 19 sites planning to migrate data, five (26.3%) planned to migrate data to other databases in less than a year, nine (47.4%) planned the migration in 1-5 years, and five sites (26.3%) weren’t expecting to migrate for at least five years.
With Web services and Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) being important in the development of modern applications, the survey asked how far respondents had gone in the development of SOA at their sites. 17 sites (38.6%) said that System z participates partly in Web services with 10 sites (22.7%) saying that System z participates fully in Web services. Two sites (4.5%) said that their mainframe will be Web-enabled in the future. But seven sites (15.9%) that said their mainframe applications did not participate in Web services and they didn’t intend to implement mainframe Web services. Eight respondents weren’t sure what was happening at their site.
The survey results are not all gloom. On the one hand it is encouraging to see that at over half the sites surveyed new IMS applications are being developed, but it is worrying to see that at over 40% of sites IMS applications are being retired and data from IMS is being migrated to other databases.
Is management sometimes unaware of the value of IMS to the organization? Is there a problem of finding young, but experienced IMS staff? Is it just management is being lured away from the mainframe to distributed computing? The good news from this survey is that there are still plenty of IMS sites that are embracing SOA and moving forward using the product. The bad news, of course, is that these sites seem to be getting fewer and fewer.
Sunday, 8 June 2008
Saving money with mainframes – revisited
I blogged about saving money with specialty engines on mainframes a couple of weeks ago, and I was taken to task over some of my conclusions – hence the need to revisit the subject.
I suggested that although specialty engines were themselves expensive, they would eventually save users’ money because workloads running on them don’t count against the MSU (Million Service Units) rating of the box. So software licences would be cheaper. I also said that a number of vendors were now supplying software that could utilize these specialty engines. And finally, I concluded that taking work off the main processor would save money because it would postpone the date when an upgrade would be necessary and also provide additional processing capacity.
Mark Fontecchio at Server Specs (http://serverspecs.blogs.techtarget.com/2008/05/20/mainframe-specialty-processors-do-they-really-save-money) mentioned the success of IFL (Integrated Facility for Linux) as well as zIIP and zAAP. He doesn’t think that the savings in software licences are very much when compared to the actual cost of zIIP or zAAP specialty engine. He makes the point that the real saving comes from "being able to buy a six-figure specialty engine instead of a new seven- or eight-figure mainframe".
Marc Wambeke in his blog at Mainframe Watch Belgium (http://mainframe-watch-belgium.blogspot.com/2008/05/saving-money-with-ziip.html) says, "Saying that every workload which is redirected to zIIP or zAAP results in a reduction of your software cost is a bit too straight-forward. You still have to keep in mind that your monthly software cost (MLC) is based on a 4-hour rolling average. If you have your peaks at night running a heavy IMS batch workload, you won't see any direct savings on that side by adding a specialty engine." And it’s a good point to bear in mind.
Marc goes on to list the product he’s come across that make use of these specialty engines. If you know of any others, he’d probably appreciate an e-mail.
My other controversial method for saving money on a mainframe is to not run your software on it!! In these days of distributed processing, there are a number of products that take mainframe data and then perform most of the work on it on a different platform. Now, I know there are lots of arguments that the total cost of ownership of non-mainframe platforms is higher, so you should stay on the mainframe, but the reality is that data centres are full of boxes that aren’t mainframes. Just a couple of examples: Guardium for mainframes does most of its work on Linux boxes off the mainframe; and the CONNX suite can process mainframe data on distributed platforms including PCs. Just a thought!
And finally, Marc Wambeke pointed out to me that my blog on saving money on mainframes was also published at http://www.tekwits.com/node/129, but this version seemed to be attributed to vivin_bob. He may be a blog aggregator, but he ought to attribute other people’s work appropriately, don’t you think?
I suggested that although specialty engines were themselves expensive, they would eventually save users’ money because workloads running on them don’t count against the MSU (Million Service Units) rating of the box. So software licences would be cheaper. I also said that a number of vendors were now supplying software that could utilize these specialty engines. And finally, I concluded that taking work off the main processor would save money because it would postpone the date when an upgrade would be necessary and also provide additional processing capacity.
Mark Fontecchio at Server Specs (http://serverspecs.blogs.techtarget.com/2008/05/20/mainframe-specialty-processors-do-they-really-save-money) mentioned the success of IFL (Integrated Facility for Linux) as well as zIIP and zAAP. He doesn’t think that the savings in software licences are very much when compared to the actual cost of zIIP or zAAP specialty engine. He makes the point that the real saving comes from "being able to buy a six-figure specialty engine instead of a new seven- or eight-figure mainframe".
Marc Wambeke in his blog at Mainframe Watch Belgium (http://mainframe-watch-belgium.blogspot.com/2008/05/saving-money-with-ziip.html) says, "Saying that every workload which is redirected to zIIP or zAAP results in a reduction of your software cost is a bit too straight-forward. You still have to keep in mind that your monthly software cost (MLC) is based on a 4-hour rolling average. If you have your peaks at night running a heavy IMS batch workload, you won't see any direct savings on that side by adding a specialty engine." And it’s a good point to bear in mind.
Marc goes on to list the product he’s come across that make use of these specialty engines. If you know of any others, he’d probably appreciate an e-mail.
My other controversial method for saving money on a mainframe is to not run your software on it!! In these days of distributed processing, there are a number of products that take mainframe data and then perform most of the work on it on a different platform. Now, I know there are lots of arguments that the total cost of ownership of non-mainframe platforms is higher, so you should stay on the mainframe, but the reality is that data centres are full of boxes that aren’t mainframes. Just a couple of examples: Guardium for mainframes does most of its work on Linux boxes off the mainframe; and the CONNX suite can process mainframe data on distributed platforms including PCs. Just a thought!
And finally, Marc Wambeke pointed out to me that my blog on saving money on mainframes was also published at http://www.tekwits.com/node/129, but this version seemed to be attributed to vivin_bob. He may be a blog aggregator, but he ought to attribute other people’s work appropriately, don’t you think?
Sunday, 1 June 2008
Enterprise Information Integration
Moving on from last week’s blog about the different hardware manufacturers whose boxes you’d find in a data centre, this week I’d like to look at the issue of Enterprise Information Integration (EII).
The problem, as you’re probably only too well aware, is that although there are now standards in computing, there are an awful lot of them! Which still means that there is no easy way of integrating data from an IMS database with a transaction running from a Unix box or browser running on a PC – or almost any other combination of two different things! Even mainframes aren’t a single homogenous entity. You have a choice of z/VSE or z/OS (or z/VM and running multiple copies of the other two). With z/OS you can complicate things by running z/Linux as well. And even if you have just z/OS, your data could be in DB2, IMS DB, VSAM files, or a lot of other standard, but incompatible, formats.
Plus, in addition to mainframes, there are lots of other so-called enterprise platforms out there – ones that dyed-in-the-wool mainframers would think of as mid-range machines. Of course, these servers are running as much computing power as perhaps a 10-year-old mainframe could. Your mobile phone probably has the computing power of a 25-year-old mainframe!!
The challenge for EII is to make available this enterprise data, with all its myriad of formats, so it looks like it’s one big easily and quickly accessible database. And it has to do this in a way that doesn’t compromise the security or the integrity of the data. In addition, each type of file probably has its own proprietary storage method, and may very well have its own indexing and data access method.
As I mentioned earlier, there are standardized access methods for different data types. These APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) include ADO.NET, JDBC, ODBC, and OLE DB. Microsoft’s ADO.NET is a new version of its ActiveX Data Objects (ADO) technology. It’s a set of software components providing access to data and data services and is included with the Microsoft .NET Framework. It’s a way to access relational databases. Java Database Connectivity (JDBC) is a Java API for accessing relational databases. Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) provides a procedural API for using SQL queries to access data. Object Linking and Embedding, Database is a Microsoft API for accessing different types of data. It was meant to supersede ODBC by also supporting data types that don’t use SQL.
In addition to nicely-defined relational database interfaces, it’s important to be able to access data from the now ubiquitous XML files as well as the millions of other types, including the now quite common vCards, etc, etc.
Once an EII system is implemented, an organization could start to save money by using it for application development, data migration, ad hoc reporting, Web enabling their existing applications, and enhancing security, for example. The hard part is finding a product that is affordable, particularly for medium and small enterprises, and that will help them to achieve these benefits. I’d be interested to hear from organizations that had implemented such a system and find out exactly what they used and how they’d rate it.
The problem, as you’re probably only too well aware, is that although there are now standards in computing, there are an awful lot of them! Which still means that there is no easy way of integrating data from an IMS database with a transaction running from a Unix box or browser running on a PC – or almost any other combination of two different things! Even mainframes aren’t a single homogenous entity. You have a choice of z/VSE or z/OS (or z/VM and running multiple copies of the other two). With z/OS you can complicate things by running z/Linux as well. And even if you have just z/OS, your data could be in DB2, IMS DB, VSAM files, or a lot of other standard, but incompatible, formats.
Plus, in addition to mainframes, there are lots of other so-called enterprise platforms out there – ones that dyed-in-the-wool mainframers would think of as mid-range machines. Of course, these servers are running as much computing power as perhaps a 10-year-old mainframe could. Your mobile phone probably has the computing power of a 25-year-old mainframe!!
The challenge for EII is to make available this enterprise data, with all its myriad of formats, so it looks like it’s one big easily and quickly accessible database. And it has to do this in a way that doesn’t compromise the security or the integrity of the data. In addition, each type of file probably has its own proprietary storage method, and may very well have its own indexing and data access method.
As I mentioned earlier, there are standardized access methods for different data types. These APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) include ADO.NET, JDBC, ODBC, and OLE DB. Microsoft’s ADO.NET is a new version of its ActiveX Data Objects (ADO) technology. It’s a set of software components providing access to data and data services and is included with the Microsoft .NET Framework. It’s a way to access relational databases. Java Database Connectivity (JDBC) is a Java API for accessing relational databases. Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) provides a procedural API for using SQL queries to access data. Object Linking and Embedding, Database is a Microsoft API for accessing different types of data. It was meant to supersede ODBC by also supporting data types that don’t use SQL.
In addition to nicely-defined relational database interfaces, it’s important to be able to access data from the now ubiquitous XML files as well as the millions of other types, including the now quite common vCards, etc, etc.
Once an EII system is implemented, an organization could start to save money by using it for application development, data migration, ad hoc reporting, Web enabling their existing applications, and enhancing security, for example. The hard part is finding a product that is affordable, particularly for medium and small enterprises, and that will help them to achieve these benefits. I’d be interested to hear from organizations that had implemented such a system and find out exactly what they used and how they’d rate it.
Monday, 26 May 2008
What’s in a data centre – or the Wild Bunch ride again!
What’s in a data centre? The answer must be IBM mainframe boxes of various sorts, mustn’t it? But the truth is that the data centre, since the hay day of the glass house, has always housed an array of hardware from a variety of sources.
Does anyone remember the BUNCH? In the late 1970s, IBM was the top mainframe vendor, followed by: Burroughs, UNIVAC, NCR, Control Data Corporation, and Honeywell. Before my time – during the 1960s – the computer manufacturers had apparently been known as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. That’s IBM, the BUNCH, and two other companies (RCA and General Electric).
The next question is where are they now? General Electric sold its computer business to Honeywell, and RCA sold its to UNIVAC back in the very early 1970s. In 1986 Buroughs bought Sperry – the people who owned UNIVAC – and formed Unisys, which is still with us. AT&T bought NCR in 1991, but brought it back in 1997. The hardware manufacturing part was sold to Solectron in 1998, and NCR is still going – but not making mainframes. Control Data Corporation gradually disappeared and is now part of BT Global Services. Honeywell is still with us, but sold its computer division to Groupe Bull.
That was then, this is now. Who has replaced the (wild) BUNCH? If you walked into a data centre today, whose hardware would you expect to see? IBM is still there. The company recently upgraded its mainframes to the z10. Not only does it have mainframes it also offers Unix boxes (the old RS/6000s) and it has x86 servers for people who want that sort of thing – and, to be brutally honest, that’s everyone except large banks, building societies, airlines, and any other giant corporation. Hewlett-Packard (the company that swallowed Compaq, the company that bought DEC) is a major player. I’m still convinced most of their revenue comes from replacement print cartridges!! HP is keen on virtualization and green strategies in the data centre. Sun is still a major player. The people who brought us Java now offer "instant data centre" with their Project Blackbox – a data centre in a shipping container that can set up your data centre anywhere and be running immediately. Fujitsu Siemens has their Primergy servers using quad-core processors. There’s also Dell, which has partnered with Oracle, EMC, and Intel to produce project MegaGrid, for grid computing. And still with us is Unisys, which now has ES5000 blade servers, and Bull, which is also keen on virtualization.
Other names you may remember are Amdahl – which used to produce mainframes that were said to be better than the IBM equivalents. There was Cray – the supercomputers that were used by the meteorological service to predict the weather and other organizations needing really powerful number crunching. I mentioned DEC briefly above. They were the people who gave us the PDP11 and other great computers.
It will be interesting in 10 years time to see which hardware vendors are still around. Maybe Nokia will be in the data centre! Homework this week is to try to make a word (like bunch) from the initials of HP, Sun, Fujitsu Siemens, Dell, Unisys, and Bull!!
Does anyone remember the BUNCH? In the late 1970s, IBM was the top mainframe vendor, followed by: Burroughs, UNIVAC, NCR, Control Data Corporation, and Honeywell. Before my time – during the 1960s – the computer manufacturers had apparently been known as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. That’s IBM, the BUNCH, and two other companies (RCA and General Electric).
The next question is where are they now? General Electric sold its computer business to Honeywell, and RCA sold its to UNIVAC back in the very early 1970s. In 1986 Buroughs bought Sperry – the people who owned UNIVAC – and formed Unisys, which is still with us. AT&T bought NCR in 1991, but brought it back in 1997. The hardware manufacturing part was sold to Solectron in 1998, and NCR is still going – but not making mainframes. Control Data Corporation gradually disappeared and is now part of BT Global Services. Honeywell is still with us, but sold its computer division to Groupe Bull.
That was then, this is now. Who has replaced the (wild) BUNCH? If you walked into a data centre today, whose hardware would you expect to see? IBM is still there. The company recently upgraded its mainframes to the z10. Not only does it have mainframes it also offers Unix boxes (the old RS/6000s) and it has x86 servers for people who want that sort of thing – and, to be brutally honest, that’s everyone except large banks, building societies, airlines, and any other giant corporation. Hewlett-Packard (the company that swallowed Compaq, the company that bought DEC) is a major player. I’m still convinced most of their revenue comes from replacement print cartridges!! HP is keen on virtualization and green strategies in the data centre. Sun is still a major player. The people who brought us Java now offer "instant data centre" with their Project Blackbox – a data centre in a shipping container that can set up your data centre anywhere and be running immediately. Fujitsu Siemens has their Primergy servers using quad-core processors. There’s also Dell, which has partnered with Oracle, EMC, and Intel to produce project MegaGrid, for grid computing. And still with us is Unisys, which now has ES5000 blade servers, and Bull, which is also keen on virtualization.
Other names you may remember are Amdahl – which used to produce mainframes that were said to be better than the IBM equivalents. There was Cray – the supercomputers that were used by the meteorological service to predict the weather and other organizations needing really powerful number crunching. I mentioned DEC briefly above. They were the people who gave us the PDP11 and other great computers.
It will be interesting in 10 years time to see which hardware vendors are still around. Maybe Nokia will be in the data centre! Homework this week is to try to make a word (like bunch) from the initials of HP, Sun, Fujitsu Siemens, Dell, Unisys, and Bull!!
Sunday, 18 May 2008
Saving money on mainframes
Mainframes have always been expensive. The hardware is expensive in the first place, and the software is expensive to run on it. That’s the main reason given by many organizations for migrating off the mainframe – it’s too expensive. A couple of Windows laptops and a bit of freeware downloaded off the Internet and you’re back in business!! Well, the old Dinosaur Myth publication put that sort of logic in its place years ago, and, although the publication is a good few years out-of-date now, the theory behind it is still correct.
And for people who have never seen the Dinosaur Myth, you can still download a copy from http://www.arcati.com/dinomyth.htm.
So, we’re left with the unenviable conclusion that all computing is expensive, it’s just whether you’re prepared to pay the money up front or you’re forced to pay out later.
This rather grim conclusion would lead one to ask, is there any way of saving money? And the answer is a pleasing "Yes". Traditionally, mainframes have a General Purpose Processor (GPP) that performs all the processing on the computer. Usage of that processor has been measured in Millions of Instructions Per Second (MIPS) and that has given IBM an easy way to charge for their computers – on how much work you are making them do, ie how many MIPS they are using. It’s a bit like charging for van hire by how many miles the van goes while it is being rented. What users really wanted was some other processing engine that could do some processing and reduce the MIPS used by the GPP. IBM came up with such a solution. They invented (and of course sold) specialty processors. I’m talking here about zIIP (System z9 Integration Information Processor) and zAAP (System z Application Assist Processor). Basically, any workloads run on these specialty engines do not form part of an organization’s contracted mainframe processing capacity. So their use results in a reduction in that organization’s Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). As a consequence, not only do they get reduced software costs, they also get additional processing capacity – and that can be used to eliminate or delay the next upgrade
It’s a bit of a swings and roundabouts situation though. An organization needs to pay for a specialty processor, and it needs to buy software that can make use of the specialty processor, and then it can start saving money – I hear the sound of Excel Pivot tables being used to present the result of what can be quite a complicated calculation. But is there any software that can make use of this hardware? We know about DB2, but that’s from IBM. What else is there? DataDirect’s Shadow software has been around for a little while, and last week NEON Enterprise Software announced that Version 5.1 of its Eclipse Reorganization Utilities for IMS will.
NEON claims in its press release that by using Eclipse Reorganization Utilities, it is possible for customers to experience capacity gains of more than 70 percent for some IMS database maintenance processing.
Now that more software is becoming available to exploit specialty engines, it does seem that users could have a way to save money on their mainframes.
And for people who have never seen the Dinosaur Myth, you can still download a copy from http://www.arcati.com/dinomyth.htm.
So, we’re left with the unenviable conclusion that all computing is expensive, it’s just whether you’re prepared to pay the money up front or you’re forced to pay out later.
This rather grim conclusion would lead one to ask, is there any way of saving money? And the answer is a pleasing "Yes". Traditionally, mainframes have a General Purpose Processor (GPP) that performs all the processing on the computer. Usage of that processor has been measured in Millions of Instructions Per Second (MIPS) and that has given IBM an easy way to charge for their computers – on how much work you are making them do, ie how many MIPS they are using. It’s a bit like charging for van hire by how many miles the van goes while it is being rented. What users really wanted was some other processing engine that could do some processing and reduce the MIPS used by the GPP. IBM came up with such a solution. They invented (and of course sold) specialty processors. I’m talking here about zIIP (System z9 Integration Information Processor) and zAAP (System z Application Assist Processor). Basically, any workloads run on these specialty engines do not form part of an organization’s contracted mainframe processing capacity. So their use results in a reduction in that organization’s Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). As a consequence, not only do they get reduced software costs, they also get additional processing capacity – and that can be used to eliminate or delay the next upgrade
It’s a bit of a swings and roundabouts situation though. An organization needs to pay for a specialty processor, and it needs to buy software that can make use of the specialty processor, and then it can start saving money – I hear the sound of Excel Pivot tables being used to present the result of what can be quite a complicated calculation. But is there any software that can make use of this hardware? We know about DB2, but that’s from IBM. What else is there? DataDirect’s Shadow software has been around for a little while, and last week NEON Enterprise Software announced that Version 5.1 of its Eclipse Reorganization Utilities for IMS will.
NEON claims in its press release that by using Eclipse Reorganization Utilities, it is possible for customers to experience capacity gains of more than 70 percent for some IMS database maintenance processing.
Now that more software is becoming available to exploit specialty engines, it does seem that users could have a way to save money on their mainframes.
Sunday, 11 May 2008
What a gadget!
I recently bought a Nokia E90 Communicator – which is a tool that comes under the category of mobile phone, but I have found it so useful for ‘everything’ that I thought I’d tell you about it.
When you first see it, it looks like a phone from the early ’90s – you know, a bit like a brick. But the great thing about it is that it opens up and you have a small computer that you can keep in your pocket! The actual dimensions are 132mm x 57mm x 20mm, and it weighs in at 210g. You can have a look at the Nokia Web site at http://www.nokia.co.uk/A4353371 to see what it looks like. Internally, it’s running Symbian OS V9.2, S60 R3.1.
So, why do I think it’s so clever? Well, it can scan for wifi networks, and, provided I have a WEP key (or it is open) then I can surf the Internet for free. It’s less easy than on a PC, but it’s certainly doable. I have my Web site (www.eddolls.com), my company Web site (www.itech-ed.com), this blog, Yahoo, Google, and the Virtual IMS Connection (www.virtualims.com) Web sites as Favourites/Bookmarks. So when I am out meeting people, I can show them Web sites or search the net, or whatever.
The other feature I’ve been using a lot is copying files (documents, spreadsheets, and, more recently, presentations) onto the phone’s microSD card, and then taking that with me. I have been able to show Powepoint presentations on my phone! Yes, it was far from ideal, but it worked. It certainly works for minutes and meeting agendas stored as Word documents. It’s also easy to look up budget items in Excel without having large amounts of paper spread all over the place. It can also handle ZIP files and PDFs (I’ve used that a few times as well). So with browsing and accessing documents, it has replaced my little laptop.
The other good thing it has is a media player. I have uploaded lots of songs and now use my phone instead of having to take my mp3 player. It means I have to remember only one piece of technology. I also keep some recent photos of my family on my phone to show old friends when we meet. The screen quality is very good and it’s easy to zoom in. Of course, the phone has a camera, which can be used for stills or video. It can also be used as a bar-code reader! But I’ve not tried that yet.
There is a radio attached, which I’ve only used once. Importantly, all my contact information is on that phone. Everyone’s name, address, and multiple phone numbers – home, office, mobile, fax, etc. Plus the calendar facility has my complete diary on it. If you ask am I free next Wednesday at 10:00, I’ll be able to tell you.
There’s also a GPS facility on the phone that identifies where you are. I need to find time to try out this facility further. It has Bluetooth, and I’ve used that to swap ring tones with friends. In fact I have personalized ring tones so I can recognize who is phoning me. I also have photos associated with some of my contacts.
The battery seems pretty good for such multi-featured device. What else… I have installed a couple of games – just to see whether I could. I have sent and received loads of text messages. Oh, yes, nearly forgot, I have used it to make phone calls!! The volume is very good and the sound quality is very clear.
It is the perfect smartphone/PDA. It is handier than a small laptop for carrying around. If you are planning an upgrade to your PDA or mobile phone, definitely take a look at this device.
In comparison, my new Blackberry 8120 is an absolute nightmare. Any hints and tips about how to do the simplest things on this chocolate teapot will be gratefully received.
And finally, a correction to last week’s blog… Wrongly, I said that Opalis had been bought by CA. This is NOT the case. Opalis and CA have recently signed a partnership agreement, but no-one has been bought. I hope that clarifies the point.
And finally, finally (!), the IMS survey is still running. If you haven’t completed it yet, go to http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=MCSamiUsmkiBqD74szrX_2fA_3d_3d. Many thanks.
When you first see it, it looks like a phone from the early ’90s – you know, a bit like a brick. But the great thing about it is that it opens up and you have a small computer that you can keep in your pocket! The actual dimensions are 132mm x 57mm x 20mm, and it weighs in at 210g. You can have a look at the Nokia Web site at http://www.nokia.co.uk/A4353371 to see what it looks like. Internally, it’s running Symbian OS V9.2, S60 R3.1.
So, why do I think it’s so clever? Well, it can scan for wifi networks, and, provided I have a WEP key (or it is open) then I can surf the Internet for free. It’s less easy than on a PC, but it’s certainly doable. I have my Web site (www.eddolls.com), my company Web site (www.itech-ed.com), this blog, Yahoo, Google, and the Virtual IMS Connection (www.virtualims.com) Web sites as Favourites/Bookmarks. So when I am out meeting people, I can show them Web sites or search the net, or whatever.
The other feature I’ve been using a lot is copying files (documents, spreadsheets, and, more recently, presentations) onto the phone’s microSD card, and then taking that with me. I have been able to show Powepoint presentations on my phone! Yes, it was far from ideal, but it worked. It certainly works for minutes and meeting agendas stored as Word documents. It’s also easy to look up budget items in Excel without having large amounts of paper spread all over the place. It can also handle ZIP files and PDFs (I’ve used that a few times as well). So with browsing and accessing documents, it has replaced my little laptop.
The other good thing it has is a media player. I have uploaded lots of songs and now use my phone instead of having to take my mp3 player. It means I have to remember only one piece of technology. I also keep some recent photos of my family on my phone to show old friends when we meet. The screen quality is very good and it’s easy to zoom in. Of course, the phone has a camera, which can be used for stills or video. It can also be used as a bar-code reader! But I’ve not tried that yet.
There is a radio attached, which I’ve only used once. Importantly, all my contact information is on that phone. Everyone’s name, address, and multiple phone numbers – home, office, mobile, fax, etc. Plus the calendar facility has my complete diary on it. If you ask am I free next Wednesday at 10:00, I’ll be able to tell you.
There’s also a GPS facility on the phone that identifies where you are. I need to find time to try out this facility further. It has Bluetooth, and I’ve used that to swap ring tones with friends. In fact I have personalized ring tones so I can recognize who is phoning me. I also have photos associated with some of my contacts.
The battery seems pretty good for such multi-featured device. What else… I have installed a couple of games – just to see whether I could. I have sent and received loads of text messages. Oh, yes, nearly forgot, I have used it to make phone calls!! The volume is very good and the sound quality is very clear.
It is the perfect smartphone/PDA. It is handier than a small laptop for carrying around. If you are planning an upgrade to your PDA or mobile phone, definitely take a look at this device.
In comparison, my new Blackberry 8120 is an absolute nightmare. Any hints and tips about how to do the simplest things on this chocolate teapot will be gratefully received.
And finally, a correction to last week’s blog… Wrongly, I said that Opalis had been bought by CA. This is NOT the case. Opalis and CA have recently signed a partnership agreement, but no-one has been bought. I hope that clarifies the point.
And finally, finally (!), the IMS survey is still running. If you haven’t completed it yet, go to http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=MCSamiUsmkiBqD74szrX_2fA_3d_3d. Many thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)