Q & A Repository

Subject: Re: Y2K Compliant VW Operating System Upgrade for Non-Wang C

Posted By: Thomas Junker
Date: 7/15/02 at 8:26 a.m.

In Response To: VS SURVIVAL (Thomas Junker)

Subject: Re: Y2K Compliant VW Operating System Upgrade for Non-Wang Customer

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 04:01:49 -0500

On 11 Dec 97 at 13:06, xxxx wrote:

> We just cancelled our maintenance agreement with Wang, because we
> found an alternate provider at about 1/3 the cost, with a better
> service record according to references.

Forgive me for being so blunt, but in my opinion that was probably not a good move.

> Anyhow, what we gave up in that process was software support.

That and maintenance of the CPU are what you most need from Wang, that no one else can provide. If you have a lot of gear (workstations, printers, etc.) outside the VS cabinet, that is the stuff you should farm out if you think you have to save on maintenance.

The software cannot be maintained by anyone but Wang, since they own it, they have the source code, and they are the only ones who can write and distribute fixes and updates. Active VS sites are in periodic contact with the Wang Support Center for assistance with any event that isn't fully explained by operational or equipment failure. System dumps, for example, are routinely sent to the Support Center for analysis, often resulting in advice on how to avoid the problem in the future and/or a patch to fix the problem.

> While our plan is to be off the Wang by the year 2000, I'm curious
> what our options are if things don't go as planned--(life rarely
> does), so do you know what it would cost us to pay for the VS
> upgrade? We are currently on a VS 8470 at OS level 7.21.09. I'd
> appreciate any info you could provide.

I have no idea. Generally Wang has charged on a "per-incident" basis for maintenance actions for non-customers. That's some very high hourly rate for the hours it takes. I don't know what their policy is on updates they are specifically making available at no charge to maintenance customers.

Why are you planning to be off the VS by 2000? Is your application somehow not modifiable to handle Y2K, or not worth the effort? Is your use of the VS primarily for WP? The VS OS (7.53.XX) and all its date-sensitive components are ready for Y2K. PACE applications in particular are not likely to be very affected, since PACE has always stored dates as YYYYMMDD regardless of the display format.

OS 7.21.09 is, I believe, one of the versions that was supported until very recently, probably because some large foreign or government users were frozen at that level. The last time I personally saw it in use was in early 1992.

OS upgrades are generally not serious matters in the VS world, so the only reason customers get "stuck" at older release levels is usually that they just don't make any effort to upgrade. In the days when Wang offices were in all major cities and every office had a bunch of analysts, OS upgrades were usually done in an hour or so. To my knowledge there has only been one OS level change that had any affect on application code. That was somewhere around 7.10 in the mid-1980's, when some major new features were added to the OS. All other upgrades have been uneventful: The system is taken down, the current OS is overlayed, and the system is brought up again. These days it would probably be wise to back up the system volume first, along with any other volumes containing system-related files (some larger systems may have Wang Office, WP, PACE and other subsystems located on volumes other than the system volume), because the upgrade may be installed by your Wang CE in consultation with the Support Center.

Rarely, there are applications that violate the normal rules for application code and may be sensitive to the OS version or its internal control blocks. Other than third-party system monitoring software that *must* be aware of OS internals, the only such case I've positively heard of is SPEED II, but they have a newer version for the later OS levels.

Here's the short version of my reasoning on keeping Wang maintenance for the core system. Note that it is equally applicable to systems of all vendors:

The manufacturer designed and manufactured the CPU and the IO controllers, which together are more complex than most anyone imagines. All the hardware in any manufacturer's processor cabinet is subject to periodic engineering fixes and upgrades, called "engineering revisions." Only the manufacturer can act as a source for reliable information about which "rev levels" are needed under what circumstances, and as a source for circuit boards certified to a given rev level. Ultimately, only the manufacturer can fabricate new circuit boards -- anyone else in the maintenance business must buy them from the manufacturer or salvage them from scrapped equipment.

In cases of smaller models this is not such an earth-shaking matter. A third party maintenance company can probably do a good job of keeping something like a VS65 or VS5000 running as long as there are parts available from scrapped machines. In cases of larger models, particularly the late-model large-cabinet models, third-party maintenance is a very shaky proposition in my opinion, regardless of how competent or dedicated the third party may be. This is not a criticism of third party maintainers, just a statement of what I believe to be the critical issue that affects the components in the VS cabinet.

Similarly, the VS system software (OS and Wang-provided subsystems such as PACE, the utilities, the compilers, WSN, IIS, WO, WP, etc.) can realistically only be maintained or its problems analyzed by the manufacturer of the software. No one else has the source code, and no one else has any legal right to modify the software. I don't know of anyone who seriously suggests that third parties can maintain the proprietary operating system software of any manufacturer. If you buy an IBM RS/6000 running AIX, for instance, you will *have* to have software maintenance from IBM or your system will eventually be worthless or nearly so. Every RS/6000 site with which I have come in contact or heard about has IBM maintenance, and there are frequent updates of one kind or another. The same goes for HP, DEC, SUN, etc.

The point here is that the system hardware and software are both dynamic, subject to continuous revision and change. If you cut yourself off from the source of that positive change either by not subscribing to the appropriate maintenance or by failing to make use of it, the manufacturer loses only a maintenance fee, but in the end you lose the viability of your system.

When Wang's maintenance prices on components outside the VS cabinet are not competitive, I cannot suggest that customers use Wang and spend money needlessly. It is up to Wang (or any vendor) to be competitive. I always recommend, though, that customers get the maintenance of everything in the VS cabinet, hardware and system software, from Wang because it makes the most sense in terms of keeping the system viable and running well.

If your system is very small, very stable, its application software is mature and unchanging, and you already know for sure that you will be moving to a completely different system well before 2000, you could cut yourself off from Wang. There would be a risk, but you might consider the risk manageable. The question I would ask, though, is this: You will have to deal with all these issues when you get your new system unless you want to find yourself in the same situation again a few years down the road. If you will have to deal with it with the new system, why not deal with it with the VS and get your money's worth out of the system?

I hope I haven't come across too harshly. I've seen and heard of a lot of similar cases, though, in which the computer system that runs the business is treated more like a copying machine than a dynamic, complex piece of technology. The smaller the company the more likely the management thinks of the capital outlay for a computer as a one-time event with little or no maintenance cost or need for eventual upgrade or replacement. The VS, one of the few systems that in many locations has been successfully used with *no* technical staff at all, is particularly susceptible to being underestimated both in its need for maintenance and periodic upgrade and in the difficulty of replacing the functions it performs.

All too many of the VS systems being replaced around the world are 1980's models that have never been upgraded being measured against mid-1990's technology from other manufacturers. Then, when the old VS has been replaced, there are comments that the new system runs much faster. Well, of course! It would also have run much faster had the VS been upgraded to a newer processor board instead of being replaced with an XYZ computer. I know of customers who are running 1985 VS models and using their performance as justification to buy a $500,000 unix system. Guess what the maintenance costs are on the new unix box?

I don't have a year of release for your VS8470, but its processor benchmark rating is 1200. There is a good possibility that you could move to a VS6230T, which is the size of a fat PC tower and plugs into a standard 110 volt outlet, and which has a benchmark rating of 1950. That's a 62% increase in processor speed and a substantial reduction in maintenance cost, physical size, and power consumption. It would be necessary to replace the IO coprocessors (controllers) as well, and change from SMD disks to SCSI. The 6230T tops out at that speed and cannot be upgraded further, so that would work only if you were sure that 62% more processing capacity would carry you through until you get your new system.

You could also keep the 8400 cabinet and just upgrade the processor from a "70" to an "80," which has a rating of 1500. That's a 25% increase in processing capacity, retains all the existing IOC's, and leaves you an in-box upgrade path to processors with ratings of 2475, 3700 and, in all probability in 1998, 6900 or so.

In any case, if your system has non-SCSI disk drives (the prior generation of industry standard drives, SMD's came out in 1986 or so), you could save substantial maintenance and operating costs by upgrading to SCSI disks. I did an analysis of this for one client and found that when all costs are taken into consideration (maintenance fees, electricity, UPS and A/C capital amortization and their operating expense and electrical consumption), replacing SMD disks with SCSI disks is a complete "no-brainer." Unless the VS is certain to be unplugged and retired within a few months, it pays to replace non-SCSI disks as soon as possible. The drives are a recoverable cost, too, since they will work on virtually any system that uses SCSI drives. Wang charges $0 (yes, that's a zero) for maintenance of any new SCSI disk drives purchased from them as long as the VS is under Wang maintenance. If it fails, they replace it.

Older tape drives such as the ones that use 3480 cartridge tapes are another white elephant. Annual maintenance on one of those drives is about the same as the purchase price of a the latest Wang 4mm tape drive. The 4mm has a monthly maintenance cost of $25 and the savings in tape costs are substantial, too. 4mm drives are also industry-standard SCSI and can be used on other systems.

OK, I'm done. If this seemed an overly long-winded reply to your question, it's because I can use the material I wrote in replying to others, and may edit it for use in my website. I hope this has been helpful, and I would be happy to discuss any of these issues further with you should you have any questions or comments.

Regards,

Thomas Junker

Messages In This Thread

Q & A Repository is maintained by Thomas Junker with WebBBS 5.00.