The C is dead, long live the C

[Adam Turk]

>Behold I prophesy!

><prophesy>
>Ahem. Not to obscure the point, but mainframes aren't ever going to go
>away. They're just going to continue to get smaller. IBM just made a
>computer the size of and index card that is more powerful than the
>computer I use here at work! You're computer is as powerful as many
>mainframes. And "PC servers" are more and more adding the hardware
>stability and complexity of mainframes. Sorry to burst your bubble,
>mainframes aren't going to die. PCs are. PCs can't compete with the
>current state of the art mainframe. They will still be called PCs in
the
>future, but in actuality they will be mainframes. This is a good thing.
>Mainframes have fantastic stability.
></prophesy>

>IMHO,
>Brian

It can be argued by your logic that current PCs are actually the past's
mainframes. So, your argument is already validated. But you say that
mainframes now are better than PCs, which are actually (according to
your argument) old mainframe technology. So why are you fighting me?
Your own argument seems rather convoluted when placed in historical
context. You are saying that new mainframes are better than old
mainframes, nothing more. PCs are mini mainframes. Fine. Mainframes are
just a testbed to tomorrow's PC technology. Ok. But then PCs never die,
by your argument. Seems horribly confusing to me. All I ever inferred
was that:
I hate monolithic network configurations
_Current_ mainframes are probably mostly old, and therefore obsolete.
Dust is a good end.

Plus, PC technology moves quickly into the market, whereas mainframe
technology is too expensive to move quickly at all.

Adam
Vqew