Why could they not just build a new main frame?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Okay maybe this is a very stupid question but here goes. Why can they not build new main frames and insert them? I know there is alot of information that would have to rentered but would that not be better than letting everything crash? Maybe only use it at the last moment? And then download information from the other in a safe mode of some kind where it would not be attached to any computer that it could cause to crash. Make it viable to keep things up and running and use it for the time being. Go back to the other and pick information off of it. Why could this not be done??...........Willie

-- William Lyle (nochem@midsouth.net), May 27, 1998


Not a stupid question, but it has been left unanswered.. but not ignored for a while. I'm assuming you are relatively unfamilar with mainframes/distributed systems. They aren't like PC's in anyway: its like comparing you buying a used Pinto from your Ford dealer, and Delta Airlines buying 30 jumbo jets. They both have engines and wheels and carpeting and need routine maintenance, but the scale is different with a fleet of airliners.

Too little money (to buy new (big) mainframe, then set them up, then support (with who?) then program/reprogram (these things don't come with embedded off-the shelf applications) then to backup and parallel process with the computer already present.)

Too little time available to do above, plus test and backup. To little time to build the mainframes, and customize them, etc. In general, the current mainframe can do the job still (some are being repalced as part of Y2K, but not all) but its program needs fixing.

Please understand, the computer is seldom the problem itself with respect to Y2K. The problems

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 07, 1998.

(cont'd from above)

...The problem is in the software running on the "mainframe", and in the user (like me) who sends things with the wrong data. Therefore: test, retest, and then check your testing.

(I still claim we need a spell-checker on this ~!@#$%^&*() thng.)

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 07, 1998.


Hukt on foniks sher werkt fore me. Wehn I am macking a long poste and want to sppel rite, I uus werd, thene cut and paist.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), September 07, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ