🚀 go-pugleaf

>I don't think so.  IBM still dominates the world of computing, along with
>FORTRAN and COBOL.  Personal computers are catching up, though.  Give it
>another 5 or 6 years (i.e., more people use an IBM mainframe than use an PC
>[except, possibly, as a terminal to the mainframe]).

Not sure I believe you about PC's, estimates are there are 15 to 30
million PC's out there and their use as terminals onto mainframes is
usually bemoaned as "still waiting to happen". As far as Fortran and
Cobol, again, how do you know this?

Something I've used to measure this latter claim is to take the Sunday
Jobs section of a major newspaper (I've used the Sunday Boston Globe)
and make a simple tick count of jobs being offered in various areas.

Last I did it (86-88) Unix/C was catching up rapidly on traditional
areas (IBM Mainframe, Cobol, Fortran, BAL.) I know, that's only
because Unix/C is a growth area and that's what this is really
measuring. My guess is that's like saying Maseratis usually win races
only because they're fast.

I suppose you could nitpick the measure but it would be far more
productive to suggest a better measure (the nice thing about this one
is that anyone can do it in their living room in a few minutes.)

IBM's mainframe predominance in the computing world is shrinking
rapidly, that's why their revenues are in trouble. There was a time
when they accounted for as much as 80% of *all* computer sales in the
world, just a few years ago. I don't think they account for 50%
anymore (partly due to growth in the industry around them.) And the
current sales are heavily weighted towards a relatively few customers
(fortune 100, US Govt), not that their money isn't green, but it's not
as widespread an environment as it was say 10 years ago, particularly
in relative terms. 50% is nothing to sneeze at, but if one is trying
to do predictions the trends are pretty clear.

Either IBM comes up with something brilliant to buoy their mainframe
market (something I wouldn't discount as a possibility) or expect a
rapid decline over the next 5 or so years as people realize they can
"down-size" effectively ("down-sizing" is a term used in the MIS/DP
market for replacing mainframe facilities with smaller machines, if
you read that press you'd be shocked how many blue-serge suits are
standing up and making testimonials about how they're decommissioning,
or planning to in the near future, their mainframes and moving to a
PC/LAN network with maybe a mini, typically AS/400 or Vax, at the
hub.) There are areas where down-sizing doesn't cut it, but there are
a *lot* of areas where it does, and that's skimming the cream out of
the market.

I suppose what people are talking about here is "down-sizing" in the
super-computer market.

It makes a lot of sense, most scientists I've worked with (I used to
be in charge of most of the computers at BU and earlier, for a short
while, ran the Harvard Chemistry computing facility, before that I was
at the Harvard School of Public Health for several years) seem to
prefer having political control over smaller facilities rather than go
begging to centralized administrators. As under $100K systems approach
100MIPs and 30MFLOPS or so I don't see where the motivation to hassle
with a system that's shared by hundreds of people will come from,
except for those perhaps several dozen groups in the country that
absolutely must be on a super-computer, even they'll do more and more
prototyping and development on department-sized or personal
facilities. Again, dwindling numbers. It's already happening.
-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade         | bzs@world.std.com
1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs