Slashdot Mirror
IBM iSeries or Windows server?
Rabid Cougar asks: "I am the network administrator for a small manufacturing company. Our current ERP system has outlived its usefulness and we are in the process of selecting another package. Our present ERP system runs on an IBM AS/400, but there are those in the company who believe we should switch to something that only runs on Windows. My position is this: if we can find software that will meet our needs that runs on an IBM iSeries (new name for the AS/400) then we'd be certifiably crazy to move over to the Windows platform. A co-worker insists there are a ton of reasons to avoid the iSeries like the plague. I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but if you were to bet your career on this issue, which side would you choose and why?"
If it currently works on AS/400, and you really need to upgrade the system, then I'd change one variable (the hardware), and keep running the current ERP. If they later wish to transition to a Windows-only solution, make sure that you get a generous time-table and enough technical support to ensure that it's running smoothly before the old system is turned off.
I'm sure that's being done, but sometimes executives get bit by a buzzword-compliant vendor, and lose sight of what's actually at risk; your entire business. Remember when Hershey shot itself in the foot over a several-month period when their SAP upgrade didn't work as well as it should have.
Note, I have no particular love for AS/400s, but I do believe in being cautious when potentially screwing up my entire environment and calling months of unpleasant work down on my head.
the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
So you are looking at all the ERP packages out there and have to decide on a new one. Should you then let the enviroment it runs on be a deciding factor?
I think both yes and no. Obviously you should select the package that is best for your needs considering all the factors like costs, reliabilty, likelihood of the software company to continue to exist, security, usability and god knows what more. There are enough books out there to tell you what to check.
The OS shouldn't have to matter. In an ideal world it doesn't but this world isn't ideal. Choosing one OS or the other has significant effects.
Flamewar material would be to point out that the current wmf mess would suggest that windows is still as insecure as ever. Then again you can ask wether this security hole is a risk for a backoffice system.
Then there is a question of lock-in, going for windows only solutions tends to force you to continue with windows only solutions for ever. You will loose your competent admins either because you fire them to replace them with far cheaper window admins or they will quit on their own. You will be another MS shop. Is this bad? Well not really. ERP software is usually a long term solution anyway and who can say if your company is even going to be around a decade from now? Plus a backoffice lock-in can at least be easier broken then a frontoffice lock-in.
Anyway AS/400 could be considered just as much of a lock-in choice.
Do the people who want to switch to the Windows only solution do this because that ERP package is the best or because it runs on windows?
I would personally seriously question any real software that does not run on multiple platforms. We are not talking games here wich are bound to the OS by choice of libraries.
I would also take a good long hard look at real uptime of such a solution under real workloads. INCLUDE the upcoming wmf patch and such delights as code red wich are bound to happen in the life time of your new erp solution.
AS/400 == nightmare but at least it is a nightmare you control and not every scriptkiddie on the internet.
If the choice for the new ERP system is going to be based on OS choice alone however I would recommend you get your CV ready.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
If you can find the software you want I'd suggest you stay with the iSeries. Going to Windows makes you subject to all the problems of a commodity piece of hardware and Microsoft's strange ideas of what makes a good server. The iSeries on the other hand has it's roots in a mainframe world where the hardware and OS all come from the same vendor. The result is a far far more stable system.
There are stories about AS/400s running in offices where an IBM service rep shows up and nobody in the office knows where the machine is - the last person who touched the hardware retired years ago... or even that the machine had been plastered into a closet when the office had been remodeled. These things are designed to run for years continuously without being babied or rebooted. It will make your life much easier.
I'd stick with AS/400 if I were you, especially if you have competent admins to administer it. AS/400's reliability and security is second only to large scale mainframes, and last much better than x86 when it comes to long term investment. Sure it costs a lot up front, but when you consider that system could last 7-15 years easily, it sure beats a 3-5 year price cycle of a x86 farm. Also, if the task is mission critical keep in mind that AS/400 up-time will absolutely destroy Windows, Linux and even industrial Unix systems up-time and those x86 machines will only start to approach AS/400 reliability when you start to farm the x86 machines.
Now if the ERP software your currently using is out of business, or is absoletly prohibitly expensive vs other ERP solutions, then look at all of your ERP options and pick the best one that will work for you and your business regardless of price, platform, or OS. Too many PHB's get sucked into the magical speak that comes out of the guy with the plaid suit and big shiny teeth to see if the software their actually buying will work for them. Make sure that whatever you're going to spend $100,000+ on is really going to do the job that your AS/400 is doing. Period. Call other companies using those solutions, get demos, get all the plaid suit big shiny teeth people in a room and play Corporate ThunderDome. Either way, Hardware wise IBM is the way to go when it comes to hardware and support.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
Very good strategy. Except that you miss that while zero-Cost Linux, Windows, "Enterprise" Linux, commercial UNIX may very well be resonably similar as far as administration, down time, etc; And Dell, IBM xSeries, HP, homemade PCs, Sun Fire systems may provide a similar platform, to run you ERP package on; however AS/400 and iSeries is in a distinct class. VMS is perhaps comparable. High end Sun stuff may be (www.sun.com listing "midrange" server starting at $30k).
Some applications, while supporting different platforms, do so at a very different level. AppX on PlatformA may be "better" then AppY on PlatformA. But AppX on PlatformB is worse then AppY on PlatformB. So the question then is which of {AppX/PlatformA, AppX/PlatformB, AppY/PlatformA, AppY/PlatformB) is better. And thats a different question entirely. One might be tied to a paticular application, so only the platform is open for change. One might be tied to a platform, and the application must run on this. In this paticular case, everything seems to be on the table.
It really would depend on the downtime difference between the two systems. If the AS/400 never or rarely goes down, it might be cheaper even if the IBM support contracts are highway robbery. Everytime a server goes down or needs a reboot during business hours means that you're losing productivity from every user of that server at the time. Hiring reboot monkeys doesn't fix that money sinkhole.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Our system is zero non-maintenance downtime in the 6 months since I was hired and installed it. Total uptime is above 99.95%.
That's the problem. AS/400 systems frequently have zero downtime over the course of over 15 years.
I don't quite understand why everyone always comes down so hard on Windows
Because Microsoft believes that 99.5% uptime over the course of a year, or almost a full month of downtime over the course of 15 years is acceptable.
In practice, that 99.5% uptime is only maintained with the efforts of continuous IT monitoring and maintenance- something that isn't needed when you buy a proper server.
Linux confuses the hell out of me.
Its your other inadequecies that are the problem right now: While Linux can run on many pieces of "Big Iron" (where Windows doesn't run at all, by the way), most people still use things like CMS on these things.
I realize you might not know what that is, but shit, my four year old can use Linux very well, and can't manage to use CMS at all, so maybe you're trying to say that you are confused by something as simple as Linux?
I don't really understand.
In my opinion, why use something that is stuck in the past?
Because it works?
You see, a large number of people actually value getting work done, and do not care at all whether or not it's the latest and greatest.
That's part of the appeal of businesses that switch to Linux- it's based on a technology that first matured in the late 1960's or early 1970's (depending on who you ask). That technology is extremely well understood and as a result, it's very easy for a company to deliver a platform based on it that "just works".
Meanwhile, the Windows platform is a moving target- it's changed fundementally no less frequently than every 5 years, and many can argue significant changes even more frequently.
The result? It's harder to deliver a platform that a solution-provider can guarantee a certain level of productivity with: Consider this: If we have AS/400 systems or UNIX systems that can be up for 15 years under heavy load, and along comes something else that says they can stay up for "most of a year" under "some load" with "constant maintenece" - how is it anyone is expected to take them seriously?
GUI is so, like, 1995.
This makes no sense.
Are you saying that everything's been graphical since 1995? Or anything's been graphical since 1995? Or perhaps that computers have been usefully graphical since 1995?
I don't understand.
Are you suggesting AS/400's aren't graphical? That Linux isn't? That UNIX isn't? That CMS isn't?
I don't understand.
Are you suggesting that a graphical system leads to greater productivity? Greater performance? Greater stability? Greater uptime?
I don't understand.
I have no idea what this has to do with anything else in your thread.
I have no idea why you think that other people make decisions on their business, their platform, and their hardware, based on your own inadequecies.
I have no idea what you could be possibly thinking, and am beginning to suspect you don't.
This got marked Funny, but the sad thing is, he's serious.