Prev: Procobol error.. please help
Next: Variable Length Input File
From: Richard on 20 Dec 2006 22:02

P. Raulerson wrote:

> New PC Hardware: $4K - $11K. Depending upon the needs. $11K = new dual-core
> dual processor IBM LS20 blade with dual fibre connections & eight gigs of
> RAM on board.
>
> VM software (Free to about $4K).
>
> NT Software, Compiler, etc. Already in place.
>
> So cost (in the U.S. you are on your own in the U.K.) is anywhere from $4K
> to $15K, a very reasonable cost to extend the life of a critical system. And
> yes, you could host it on a Windows Server or Windows Vista machine without
> any trouble.

It is possible that the application may just be running on a single
machine, the compiler is, but it is likely that the production program
is running on every desktop machine in the company, or a significant
number of them. $15K * several hundreds or thousands of PCs may be a
bit steep.

From: P. Raulerson on 21 Dec 2006 20:11
Tsk tsk... not so. There is such a thing as a virtual machine image that
allows remote access. See for example:
http://www.vmware.com/solutions/desktop/vdi.html. It's even cost effective.

However, a company making that kind of move would probably already have
accounted for this and have a plan in place to deal with it. This smells a
lot like a company wanting to keep that application running for 'just a
little while longer'.

-Paul

"Richard" <riplin(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1166670160.307778.99640(a)n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> P. Raulerson wrote:
>
>> New PC Hardware: $4K - $11K. Depending upon the needs. $11K = new
>> dual-core
>> dual processor IBM LS20 blade with dual fibre connections & eight gigs of
>> RAM on board.
>>
>> VM software (Free to about $4K).
>>
>> NT Software, Compiler, etc. Already in place.
>>
>> So cost (in the U.S. you are on your own in the U.K.) is anywhere from
>> $4K
>> to $15K, a very reasonable cost to extend the life of a critical system.
>> And
>> yes, you could host it on a Windows Server or Windows Vista machine
>> without
>> any trouble.
>
> It is possible that the application may just be running on a single
> machine, the compiler is, but it is likely that the production program
> is running on every desktop machine in the company, or a significant
> number of them. $15K * several hundreds or thousands of PCs may be a
> bit steep.
>


From: Rick Smith on 21 Dec 2006 20:17

"Ron" <ron(a)address.below> wrote in message
news:rgqlo29nie1i2sqp9r6famo2tu5d0ekad7(a)4ax.com...
> "UK-Contractor42" <lawrence.foster(a)uk.zurich.com> wrote:
>
> >One of my current contract tasks is to put a old, vulnerable
> >application based on 16bit code on a firmer footing by researching,
> >documenting and testing changes to it.
> >Build architecture is Windows NT4 SP4, Microfocus COBOL 3.2.43,
>
> Is that even working, today? MF COBOL 3.2 wasn't Y2K compliant.

Micro Focus did not, to the best of my knowledge,
state why it was not Y2K-compliant. It might have
something so rare as an attempt to install the system
beginning before the end of day 31 Dec 1999 with
completion of the installation early 1 Jan 2000 might
have failed.

I have been using 3.2 since mid-1994 with no
Y2K-problems and all users of the application I
modified went though the year change with no
Y2K-problems.



From: Richard on 21 Dec 2006 21:48

P. Raulerson wrote:

> Tsk tsk... not so. There is such a thing as a virtual machine image that
> allows remote access. See for example:
> http://www.vmware.com/solutions/desktop/vdi.html. It's even cost effective.

That may be so, but that would be single-user access at any one time
for each virtual machine. If the application is installed and used
widely then it is unlikely to be useful to get the users to queue for
access to it.

I am guessing that you are a mainframer and do not have much experience
with interactive desktop or PC applications.

From: LX-i on 21 Dec 2006 23:51
Ron wrote:
> "UK-Contractor42" <lawrence.foster(a)uk.zurich.com> wrote:
>
>> One of my current contract tasks is to put a old, vulnerable
>> application based on 16bit code on a firmer footing by researching,
>> documenting and testing changes to it.
>> Build architecture is Windows NT4 SP4, Microfocus COBOL 3.2.43,
>
> Is that even working, today? MF COBOL 3.2 wasn't Y2K compliant.

I have no idea at all - but, I'd venture to say that the further into
the 21st century we go, the more 2-digit years would begin to work
again. (Not that I'm an advocate of going back....)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel(a)thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Procobol error.. please help
Next: Variable Length Input File