[COYOTE]

Friends....

I am not very computer literate, however I was wondering if someone would be so kind as to compare and contrast the latest PC versus Mainframes controversy and how PC's and Mainframes are complementary? Would you go PC or Mainframe, and why?

Coyote

[Davey7549]

Coyote
To really understand what is or what is better a little history lesson is in order.
Years ago Mainframes were the only "computers" available.
They did basically what PC'S are capable of doing now.
In a mainframe configuration the central processor was the mainframe, all input items attached to them were dumb terminals.
Terminals were not capable of processing on their own only display and input. As technology advanced and processors became smaller the PC was born.
To put things into prospective Univac one of the first computers, created with vacuum tubes, "and yes I remember vacuum tubes" if compared to 1986 standard pc 486 would of filled the whole EmpireState building with wiring and tubes to compare.
Enough on Neanderthal times!
Anyway PC'S Started to replace these Dumb terminals through what was called emulation. To this day that architecture still exists. PC'S allowed the user to remove information stored on the mainframe "cpu" and manipulate it, spreadsheets and so on, and produce reports and documents to support their needs.
However, this information produced by the PC'S could not update the main application software since it was not compatible in form or fit.
One of the unfortunate side effects of this transition was many organizations within a company were producing information that others did not understand nor use.
Mainframes in their original form forced integration
but limited creative thought.
Through integration what you saw on that customer record was up to date and because of this you were limited to the boundaries of the mainframes software.
Mainframes in actuality are what we consider servers today.
Servers however can store predetermined software RE: web sites, but they can also route interaction between other Servers or PC'S.
So I guess the bottom line is:
Personal Computer - could it not be central to many PC'S?
RE: Server, Router, Mainframe
Server - Could it not Process, compute, route and control
RE: PC, Mainframe, Router
Mainframe - Could it not do all of the above?
What is the controversy, all can do the same thing, each have their own expertise and use depending on your application.

[bd]

I don't know if that answer was what you were looking for but No one can say Davey didn't make a good thorough effort.

Bob



[Edited by bd on 04-03-2001 at 03:53 AM]

[Lurker1]

Hi COYOTE
Mainframes basically are better at handling massive I/O. Some systems running in the 80s could have 40 I/O channels with multiple devices (think a string of tape drives) on each channel. Each channel would have a hardware interrupt so there were no IRQ conflicts. Back in the 70's a mainframe computer could run 10 different jobs keeping track of all I/O resources with less than 1 meg of memory. The PC is based on the original 8088 chip which could only support 64K of memory and had limited IRQs. They have gotten better but they are still limited because they try to maintain compatibility with older programs (and windows).
It's kind of interesting to imagine what our systems could do now if the best features of the mainframe hardware and operating systems were built into our present PCs. (think no crashes) I know of a mainframe system that ran fine for a year with no need for any rebooting except for when the building lost power. Of course then we would not have this site.

[COYOTE]

Thank you all for your help. It has given me a greater focus in delineating the differences and current similarities between mainframe and PC's capabilities.

much "obliged"


cOYOTE