Date:         Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:33:11 -0500
Reply-To:     Joe Whitehurst <joewhitehurst@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Joe Whitehurst <joewhitehurst@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Death of the Mainframe? (was PC SAS vs. Mainframe SAS)
Comments: To: ben.powell@cla.co.uk
In-Reply-To:  <200610231118.k9NAkkKl003972@mailgw.cc.uga.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/biztech/10/30/reviving.mainframes.ap/index.html

On 10/23/06, ben.powell@cla.co.uk <ben.powell@cla.co.uk> wrote:
>
> So mainframe will be replaced with distributed/generic at the rate by
> which
> computing TCO reduces relative to increasing application demand? If MSoft
> Office 2020 runs to 100 terabytes then we may still need mainframe...
>
> Rgds.
>
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:40:38 -0400, Fehd, Ronald J. (CDC/CCHIS/NCPHI)
> <rjf2@CDC.GOV> wrote:
>
> >> From: Alan Churchill
> >>
> >> But Ron, not all companies do IT chargeback. A company can
> >> allocate costs in various ways and doesn't necessarily have
> >> to charge per use for computing.
> >>
> >> I think chargeback may be one of the big reasons for the rise
> >> of departmental computing.
> >
> >As long as we are talking six figure numbers,
> >the accountants may agree that that the long division
> >may not be worth it.
> >
> >However, once you have eight figure costs
> >then I think the juice is worth the sqeeze
> >and the hand-wringing of charge-back is a necessary and welcome evil.
> >
> >> Ron Fehd  a previous MVS maven  CDC Atlanta GA USA RJF2 at cdc dot gov
>