IBM's z9 mainframe -- worth $1 billion?
posted Jul 28th 2005 5:40AM
IBM may have
ditched its PC division, but
that doesn't mean the company's abandoned the computer business. In fact, the company has just launched its latest
mainframe, the z9, developed at a cost of $1 billion over the past three years. While some might argue that IBM
has it backwards — that the company should have abandoned the hulking mainframes and stayed with PCs — the company
is just following the money: PCs have become low-margin, commodity products. Mainframes, meanwhile, remain cash
cows, since they generate lucrative software and maintenance contracts. Of course, not too many companies are all
that interested in buying mainframes anymore — but at up to $1 million a pop, IBM doesn't need to sell too many of
them. And if the market shrinks any further, we're sure the company can find someone to pick up what's
left of its mainframe biz.
"IBM doesn’t need to sell too many of them."
Surely it still needs to sell 1000 to break even?
what are the specs? i was looking for a comp to play halflife 27:)
Actually the mainframe computer is supposedly making a comeback in terms of whateverthefuckness.
Well, thats what I heard.
They need to sell 1000 of them if their production costs for each unit are $0 (yeah, right). In fact they need to sell quite a few more than 1000 units.
The definition of the word 'mainframe' can be found in Isham Research's Devil's IT Dictionary: "an obsolete device still used by thousands of obsolete companies serving billions of obsolete customers and making huge obsolete profits for their obsolete shareholders. And this year's run twice as fast as last year's."
I suppose the thing with big iron is that a lot of state and federal agencies (mostly) are tied to legacy apps that run on the mainframes - some agencies have hardware dating back to the 70s, and may be ready to start buying new hardware, especially those agencies that aren't sold on Wintel (or Linux on Intel) stability. From what I understand, IBM is practically giving away hardware now as long as you buy z/VM licenses to run on them. Ain't a bad plan, sucker someone into running Linux on the z if they're old-school mentality about big iron never going down ain't gonna change.
On top of that, remember that in the 1980s, noone ever got fired for buying IBM. Then again, these days, in the distributed and consulting world, everyone SHOULD get fired for buying IBM.
After the failure of client server technology the mainframes have resumed their roll at the heart of IT data centers.
The major change from the pre-client server hiccup has been that they now sell mostly mainframes that run's 100's if not 1000's of instances of virtualized Linux.
This allows IBM to readily pitch the mainframe as being capable of being run by the folks already in the IT data-centers vs needing to find some of the few remaining "silver hairs" that know how to use the mainframes original OS: VM.
upto 54 processors, 512 GB memory, and 172.8 GBps/ bandwidth
Sweet.
They don't make as much money in the sale of the hardware as they do the sale of service/support/consult contracts that go along with 'em. Therefore, they don't necessarily have to sell 1000's to make a buck.
#5: The big 3 aren't obsolete.
First off, it's not difficult to sell a couple thousand mainframes. Recouping the $1bn is easy.
Secondly, I use a mainframe every single day. It's a shiny newer IBM mainframe and it is an invaluable tool. There are still uses for mainframes... it's just usually in very big companies with many locations to manage.
Companies are definitely re-discovering the mainframe in light of identity theft. Having worked with both the mainframe and servers, I can tell you that the mainframe is much more secure.
I think the OP was channeling "Mr. Mellish", a character on sardonic old IBM / Lexmark radio ads who was always coming up with some printer that cost like, a million dollars. The IBM / Lexmark guy would hesitantly suggest that the price was a bit steep, to which Mr. Mellish would retort that if he could just sell one he could retire!
What is IBM thinking ? Haven't they heard ? The PS3 with CELL is gonna be out next year. I mean, if mainframes weren't already obsolete they soon will be...
(THAT'S RIGHT! This comment was completely sarcastic)
First, the mainframe and it's various operating systems are THE most reliable package one can get. Nothing even comes close when it comes to RAS - reliability, availability, and servicability. This is why big companies with critical applications use 'em.
Second, the I/O subsystems (I/O channels) provided by the mainframe make any other I/O subsystem look like toys. The I/O subsystems offered by other platforms are equivalent to what the mainframe offered 20+ years ago.
Also, IBM has made a huge commitment to Linux. Take a Z9, run VM on it, and you can run literally thousands of instances of Linux on it.
That's just a start...
"...that [IBM] company should have abandoned the hulking mainframes and stayed with PCs..."
Aside from traybucket76, I suspect most of the comments here are posted by people who wouldn't know a mainframe if they tripped over it.
MTF (mean-time-to-failure) is measured in decades...try that on your WinTel boxes, guys. And the software is equally solid and much more secure. 6000 trans/sec? How many Intels would that take?
Well, someone here's never gotten wet panties over a Blade server.
Blade servers give me the willies. They sound like something out of a bad sci-fi movie.
:: Lisa
:: adora [at] techslut [.] net
Regarding the "specs" quote of "54 processors". We mainframe people sometimes forget to count processors that for other platforms are either non-existent or use the primary processors to perform a similar function. For example, there are 2 spare processors, 8 I/O processors, and hundreds of POWERPC processors that do I/O handling. A few years back I counted up over 50GHz of processing power before even considering what IBM quotes in the specs as the number of processors on a machine. There are even two Thinkpads under the covers used to communicate with the machine.