Mainframe != server (Score: 1) by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2014-06-24 13:05 (#28S) Do these people not know what a server is? Mainframes serve terminals, not web pages (though occasional these terminals run web-like interfaces a la intranet). The article seems to argue for main frames by saying that they are presently in use and therefor should be used... Yes, they are in use, but with personal computer prices so low now, why do we need terminals? Why not just use a server, which, so far as I can tell from the description of uses for mainframes in the articles, would serve the same purpose. IBMs is still trying to push their mainframes in the name of RAS but frankly given the state of IT, is that really an issue?I see owning a mainframe as a Catch 22 to not stop owning a mainframe. Once you're in (especially if you've been in long enough that you would have at one point needed to have bought a mainframe), the price of switching your business to modern architecture goes up up and away.But hell, I could be off base on all of this is the price is right. I don't have to time to look up numbers right now, so if someone wants to slam me into the ground with prices, that'd be cool. Re: Mainframe != server (Score: 1) by email@example.com on 2014-06-25 02:25 (#294) The price/performance of mainframes is not very competitive unless RAS is a non-negotiable requirement, rather than as a tacked-on or 3.0 feature as it is for MS and Linux-based vendors. The rest of the computing industry is still catching up to the RAS stuff that IBM (and presumably its erstwhile mainframe competitors) had in place decades ago, not so much because it is rocket science, but because they're always too busy chasing the new new thing.