Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Windows, On a Mainframe

coondoggie writes with an excerpt from Network World: "Software that for the first time lets users run native copies of the Windows operating systems on a mainframe will be introduced Friday by data center automation vendor Mantissa. The company's z/VOS software is a CMS application that runs on IBM's z/VM and creates a foundation for Intel-based operating systems. Users only need a desktop appliance running Microsoft's Remote Desktop Connection (RDC) client, which is the same technology used to attach to Windows running on Terminal Server or Citrix-based servers. Users will be able to connect to their virtual and fully functional Windows environments without any knowledge that the operating system and the applications are executing on the mainframe and not the desktop."

19 of 422 comments (clear)

  1. In other news... by janeuner · · Score: 5, Funny

    Norton AntiVirus, Mainframe Edition!

    Now on sale for $49,950, first year of virus definitons free!

    1. Re:In other news... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Funny

      Norton AntiVirus, Mainframe Edition!

      Now on sale for $49,950, first year of virus definitons free!

      Guaranteed to take up 90% of cycles and 75% of RAM, regardless of mainframe resources. Slow and buggy, get the new version with VirtualDriveLightAlwaysOnPlus, which gives the user the feel of working on a real Windows workstation with NortonAV installed.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:In other news... by kpainter · · Score: 5, Funny

      For some reason my 3 char password just isn't enough anymore.

      Would that be "CTRL+ALT+DEL"?

    3. Re:In other news... by OnlineAlias · · Score: 5, Funny

      Seriously, the Microsoft licensing is what you are worried about? In this scenario, I'd have a shotgun in my office waiting for Big Blue or Computer Associates to come busting through. This is a mainframe dude, where "insert shaft/no lube" licensing models are standard procedure.

  2. Re:Most common use of virtualization by janeuner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can use Windows and Mainframe in the same sentence.

    You can even use Reliability and Mainframe int he same sentence.

    But, seriously, using Windows and Reliability together??? You must be from marketing.

  3. Easy answer by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Informative

    BIG customers. A lot of large corporations need to run Windows Server for things like Exchange, and to a lesser extent .NET. Those same large customers are attracted to mainframes, which offer very high availability and reliability, and can consolidate hundreds (or even thousands) of rack mounts into a single refrigerator sized system, drawing only 10kW~ in the process. $2M/year for a mainframe and mainframe operators could be justified in some cases if the cost of electricity and personnel needed to maintain a large, commodity server based datacenter is added up (this depends on the workloads; the commodity servers will also win sometimes).

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  4. Re:old farts trying to stay relevent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is it with trying to get everything back on a mainframe? It's dead already, just manage your desktops and stop trying to revive it.

    Dead? That would be news to IBM and the other mainframe vendors. Mainframes have many advantages:

    - Solidity. You can buy mainframes with a warranty and guarantee, meaning that IT WILL NOT CRASH.

    - Performance. There is lots of literature detailing the performance of mainframes under real-time conditions.

    Now, these factors aren't important to everybody, but they are to some.

    On the other hand, I doubt the price of PC virtualization on a mainframe is going to beat virtualizaion on Sun or VMware.

  5. Why not VMware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Rocket powered hamster indeed.

    Why wouldn't you just spend the money on a small ESX farm with a couple of nodes and a NFS or iSCSI SAN?

    That's something your in house techies can manage. If something busts, you get a new part and install it yourself. No need to call Big Blue up and have the wizard come down just to replace a failed processor. You get the redundancy, and reliability that you need for mission critical services.

    Running Windows on a zSeries is just lame. zSeries != x86, so you're emulating a processor /anyways/, and I can't imagine the performance would be that stellar anyhow. Chances are if you paid for a zS, you've got better things to put your processor capabilities towards rather then emulating Windows. Plus I can't imagine that *any* software that runs on a zSeries is cost effective...

    -AC

  6. Re:Let the analogies commence by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's like creating a world-spanning network with submarine cables, microwave links, fiber-optic everything, satellite dishes, protocols out the wazoo, billions of lines of code and huge multinational telecommunications and consulting companies to service and support it, employing tens of millions in highly skilled work...just to look at some big titties. http://images.google.com/images?q=bigtitties&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___US233&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  7. Stability? Hah! by gravos · · Score: 5, Funny

    These guys really want all the top notch 100% stability of Windows Vista... on their mainframe? Oh man, I must be missing something. Does Microsoft pay them to do this?

    1. Re:Stability? Hah! by soren202 · · Score: 5, Funny

      dozens? No.

      This is Vista we're talking about.

      I'd put the number at around 4. Five if you decide to get really spendy with the mainframe.

  8. Re:kinda funny by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Funny

    now we're back to dumb terminals.

    No way. Getting their human caretakers to uninstall Windows is the smartest thing the terminals ever did!

  9. In other other news... by quenda · · Score: 5, Funny

    Users report that Vista finally responds smoothly.

    1. Re:In other other news... by KZigurs · · Score: 5, Funny

      bad news. Mainframe != speed.
      More apropriate would be to say that Vista crashes more predictably and across all mirrored hardware CPU's at the same time.

  10. Re:Really? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do you honesting thing the person sitting in front of the average windows workstation is the only person using it?

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  11. Taking a risk here... by I.M.O.G. · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At the risk of asking a stupid question, I'm going to put this out there anyway... Whats so special/magical about a mainframe? I'm 26 and been an IT professional for 5 years, so I'm green when it comes to mainframe systems. I work for a fortune 500 with mainframes serving various business systems, but I always pictured them as old, clunky, dusty systems that were expensive and we're still milking them along.

    Now a lot of people here are stating how a mainframe the size of a fridge can replace thousands of rackmount servers, and it doesn't jive with what I'm familiar with. Our mainframes serve ancient text based interfaces thru terminal emulator apps, and it doesn't look all that impressive either. What is it about a mainframe that enables such a large amount of computing power to be condensed into a refridgerator sized package? Or are some folks around here exagerrating considerably?

    1. Re:Taking a risk here... by Daniel+Boisvert · · Score: 5, Informative

      Whats so special/magical about a mainframe?

      The I/O. On a mainframe, you can run a query and generate large datasets so fast it'll blow your mind (in 2002-ish, say tens of gigabytes). On the mainframe it's no big deal, and you can run queries like that all day and never have any idea how much data you're moving around until you try to move it somewhere else and wonder why it's taking so long.

      Our mainframes serve ancient text based interfaces thru terminal emulator apps, and it doesn't look all that impressive either. What is it about a mainframe that enables such a large amount of computing power to be condensed into a refridgerator sized package? Or are some folks around here exagerrating considerably?

      The mainframe isn't about looking pretty, it's about getting work done, and the folks touting their benefits generally aren't exaggerating. Mainframes aren't generally designed for CPU-heavy tasks, although they certainly can be clustered pretty impressively if you really need lots of CPU. The biggest advantage is that you can really use the CPU's you've got. There are service processors to offload things like memory management, encryption, I/O, virtualization overhead, etc. There are really really fast I/O channels. You typically attach them to really really fast disk and tape. These things together allow you to move a lot of data around very quickly, and get a lot of work done.

      Additionally, lots of large companies have lots of man-hours invested in systems that run their businesses. I've seen attempts to reimplement some of the beasts to get them off the mainframe, and they typically don't go well. I've also seen assembly code written in the late 1960's still running in production more than 35 years later. The underlying hardware had been upgraded many times, but IBM made sure the old stuff would still work.

      Things like this are worth a lot of money to a certain class of purchaser.

  12. Re:WHY???? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ugh. Of all of the news stories about NetBSD on a toaster, you had to link to one that puts `Linux' in the headline even though the story has nothing to do with Linux.

    As one of the comments said, NetBSD is not Linux. Not everything related to Free Software is about Linux.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  13. Re:Reliability. by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    A well built mainframe combined with a suitable power supply (e.g. backup generator etc) has up-times measured in YEARS.

    Worth noting that this is not the same thing as that old legend about the Novell NetWare server that got sealed up in a room for years and ran fine. That was just luck. Mainframes, on the other hand, are designed to have uptimes measured in years. Typically, every single component is redundant and the system is designed for failover in the event of a hardware outage. In a transaction-processing environment, a mainframe can detect things like RAM and CPU failure in the middle of a transaction and fail over to a different processor module or addressing space without a hitch. Try that on your Linux box.

    Mainframes tend to be designed with support for transaction processing baked into the OS, software, and the hardware, which is what makes them attractive to financial institutions who really, really, really need their transactions to process quickly and reliably 100 percent of the time.

    Another thing to consider: VMware's Virtual Infrastructure products are essentially trying to recreate a computing environment that is new to the world of commodity x86/x64 hardware, but that existed on mainframes at least as far back as the 1970s. What makes VMware's achievements so remarkable is that the x86 hardware was never meant to do this sort of thing. Mainframes, on the other hand, were designed for it. That makes it a lot more efficient and reliable on the mainframe.

    The bottom line is that a mainframe is not just an old-fashioned idea of what a server should be. Think of them instead as purpose-built, industrial-grade hardware. Think about power tools, then think about the equipment you'd find in a factory. That's the difference.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!