Why OldTech Keeps Kicking

Hugh Pickens writes "In 1991 Stewart Alsop, the editor of InfoWorld, predicted that the last mainframe computer would be unplugged by 1996. Just last month, IBM introduced the latest version of its mainframe, and technologies from the golden age of big-box computing continue to be vital components in modern infrastructure. The New York Times explores why old technology is still around, using radio and the mainframe as perfect examples. 'The mainframe is the classic survivor technology, and it owes its longevity to sound business decisions. I.B.M. overhauled the insides of the mainframe, using low-cost microprocessors as the computing engine. The company invested and updated the mainframe software, so that banks, corporations and government agencies could still rely on the mainframe as the rock-solid reliable and secure computer for vital transactions and data, while allowing it to take on new chores like running Web-based programs.'"

Comments

Is it really "old" tech?

[Sloppy]

I.B.M. overhauled the insides of the mainframe

Uh, did they replace the insides with something old, or something new? Duuhhh.

Re:Is it really "old" tech?

[omeomi]

As is the radio. I'll never understand why people think Television should have killed off the radio. Radio is still around for one major reason: It's hard (and usually illegal) to watch TV while driving. If anything is going to kill radio, it's the advent of the podcast, which in a lot of ways is close enough to the function of radio to be a real threat.

Re:Is it really "old" tech?

[MozeeToby]

So shouldn't the article be about how poor our prediction skills are rather than about how we cling to old tech? In the mainframes case, we cling to it because the concept was updated and still represents the most economically efficient solution to the problem.

The article may as well be asking "Why do personal automobiles keep kicking?". Because they work, and they solve they still solve the problems that they are meant to solve. And when a new problem crops up, (fuel prices/pollution) the solution isn't to get rid of the car, it is to redesign it to address the new concerns; just like IBM and other companies did with mainframes.

Re:Is it really "old" tech?

[Grave]

Having just done an upgrade to our accounting software this morning, and going through a number of small but still very real headaches, I can appreciate why the guys managing a major bank's information systems is damned glad that IBM does things the way they do. That's precisely why the mainframe still exists. When 5-nines uptime still isn't good enough, you don't adopt a radically different system just for the sake of change or progress. When billions of dollars rest on the absolute reliability of your computer infrastructure, migration and change are to be approached with the utmost caution, and anything that reduces complexity and presents a smaller degree of change is a godsend.

Re:Is it really "old" tech?

[SatanicPuppy]

It's an old idea, but there is nothing especially wrong with the idea itself...A stable, powerful computer with a rock solid operating system, supported by the sort of technical support only an old school provider like HP, IBM, or Sun can provide.

If you deal with money, it doesn't seem like a bad idea at all. I mean, keep your financials database on a Windows system? Are you nuts? Keep your finances in MySQL, running on Linux? I don't think so. Oracle on Linux, maybe, but what about the hardware? Going to buy yourself a nice Dell? (pause for laughter)

Buying a sexy mainframe with real hardware support, the kind where they send out a guy who knows what he's doing, 3 minutes after you call, and he's got the new part installed in an hour and a half or your money back...That stuff is priceless if you really really need your system to be reliable. I can definitely see why they're still around.

Why OldTech Keeps Kicking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the people who are used to that tech haven't kicked (the bucket).
Basic psychology. People stick with what they're used to, even if it doesn't always make the most sense.

can be argued for other things too

[downix]

Look at the inability of people to drive using joysticks, instead sticking to the classic wheel arrangement. I've seen drive by wire setups using joysticks, they work well, but people just can't get into them.

10 years ago, in Byte

[wiredog]

Why PCs Crash, and Mainframes Don't

When a PC crashes, even the system administrator might not hear about it, much less the vendors who made the system, the OS, and the application software. The user shrugs, reboots, and keeps right on working. When a mainframe crashes, however, it's a major catastrophe. It's General Motors calling up IBM to demand answers.

Ten years gone, and still relevant.

Damn I miss Byte.

NY Times misses boat again

[br00tus]

Gawker.com regularly makes fun of how the New York Times approaches a question the reporter knows little about and comes away with a convoluted answer. The article asks "Why Old Technologies Are Still Kicking". The best answer they come up with is "there must be some enduring advantage in the old technology that is not entirely supplanted by the new". There is an enduring advantage, although they don't go into what it is, and put it in a misleading way actually. It's cheap. Some of these companies have been putting business logic and programs into these systems since the 1950s. The cost of moving them from 370 to 390 to zSeries is minimal, as is replacing parts that break down etc. And it works. Sometimes better than modern machines - some of these machines have uptime of decades. High availability is not a new concept for them.

What would be the cost of hiring on top of the existing mainframe admins and developers a team to migrate this stuff to Windows or UNIX? Remember some of this code is written by people who not only have left the company but may have died. Then you have to hire new developers and administrators for the UNIX/Windows systems. Change always creates the potential for problems, so expect a higher percentage of disruptions to the business as you're doling out all this money. If IBM is making it easy for you to keep what you have going, and also allows Linux, web etc. capability, why spend all that money to transition? The answer is that a lot of times companies don't. I worked at a Fortune 100 company that still had plenty of IBM mainframes. They even had a lot of their printing handled by the mainframes, although there were Windows and UNIX gateways into the print queue.