Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 12th Mar 2009 16:27 UTC, submitted by jmarka
Hardware, Embedded Systems "Software that for the first time lets users run native copies of the Windows operating systems on a mainframe will be introduced Friday by data center automation vendor Mantissa. The company's z/VOS software is a CMS application that runs on IBM's z/VM and creates a foundation for Intel-based operating systems. Users only need a desktop appliance running Microsoft's Remote Desktop Connection client, which is the same technology used to attach to Windows running on Terminal Server or Citrix-based servers. Users will be able to connect to their virtual and fully functional Windows environments without any knowledge that the operating system and the applications are executing on the mainframe and not the desktop."
Order by: Score:
It's New!!
by fretinator on Thu 12th Mar 2009 16:57 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

Wow, using a thin client to remotely run applications from a server. This is unprecedented! What will they think of next???

Reply Score: 8

RE: It's New!!
by phoenix on Thu 12th Mar 2009 17:19 UTC in reply to "It's New!!"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Wow, using a thin client to remotely run applications from a server. This is unprecedented! What will they think of next???


Ah, but it's running Windows on a non-x86 mainframe, which is the "new" part. When was the last time you saw Windows running on a mainframe?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: It's New!!
by fretinator on Thu 12th Mar 2009 17:39 UTC in reply to "RE: It's New!!"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Ah, but it's running Windows on a non-x86 mainframe, which is the "new" part. When was the last time you saw Windows running on a mainframe?


I would imagine Windows is running in a virtualized environment, not on "bare metal". I don't think virtualization is new either.

Reply Score: 4

feels wrong
by Adurbe on Thu 12th Mar 2009 17:10 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

I know there is no technical reason this shouldnt happen but i cant shake the fact it 'feels wrong' to run windows on a mainframe..

Reply Score: 10

Why?
by dangh on Thu 12th Mar 2009 17:15 UTC
dangh
Member since:
2006-04-13

It would be a waste of perfectly good hardware. The main features of a mainframe are stability, security, high transaction rates, and reliability, none of which come to mind when when talking about Windows.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Why?
by ElCabri2 on Thu 12th Mar 2009 22:13 UTC in reply to "Why?"
ElCabri2 Member since:
2009-03-11

They're talking about hosting Windows in VMs.

Reply Score: 1

Wrong.. but useful for some...
by looncraz on Thu 12th Mar 2009 18:07 UTC
looncraz
Member since:
2005-07-24

What a waste of (expensive) resources!!

First, you emulate an x86 machine, then you install one of the least efficient OSes in existence... wasteful!!

Of course, in the corporate environment ( which this obviously targets ) it can make some sense.

Even given all of the waste, older mainframes have cheaper CPU and RAM than a more modern computer. Replacing on of those machines every time for $500 is expensive compared to a thin client for $200-$300.

The choice of Windows is to keep migration costs to near zero - you can simply move the existing software setups to the mainframe as you replace your standard desktop machines.

Then it makes sense.

From a technology purist's point of view, it is pure stupid.

--The loon

Reply Score: 5

Slooooow?
by Kebabbert on Fri 13th Mar 2009 11:50 UTC
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

It is well known that a typical 1000 MIPS IBM Mainframe CPU corresponds to 4000GHz x86 CPU in terms of performance. 1 MIPS == 4MHz.

How many CPUs does a Mainframe have? It is good for I/O, update with a small calculation on lots of posts. But a Mainframe sucks badly at number crunching.

If a Mainframe has 16 CPUs, you could almost say that it corresponds to a PC server with 4 quad core CPUs = 16 cores. Each windows will run on a mainframe CPU. Windows by itself needs 2-3GHz and 2GB RAM. Therefore I wonder how many virtual windows it will run? 16-20? If you try to run number crunching on virtual Windows, a mainframe will not be successful?

And a Mainframe costs 10 million USD and above? Isnt it quite expensive to run 20 Windows machines?

Imagine running Crysis on a Mainframe. It will fail badly?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Slooooow?
by phoenix on Fri 13th Mar 2009 16:39 UTC in reply to "Slooooow?"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Windows by itself needs 2-3GHz and 2GB RAM.


Windows XP by itself can run on a 450 MHz CPU with only 256 MB of RAM, and can run multiple applications, including MS Office XP, with as little as 768 MB of RAM.

Windows Vista requires more CPU and RAM, but not to the extremes that you listed, especially for normal business office work.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Slooooow?
by Kebabbert on Sat 14th Mar 2009 13:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Slooooow?"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Are you trying to say that a mainframe will run great a many Windows instances without problems? I am just curious, and want to know more about this.


But if a 1000MIPS Mainframe CPU == 4GHz x86 CPU according to
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-390@vm.marist.edu/msg18587.html
and a Mainframe has 16 CPUs, how many windows instances can you run on a mainframe, you guess? I mean of course, simultaneously using MS Office, Powerpoint, Visual Studio, etc. I am not interested in how many Windows instances a Mainframe can boot.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Slooooow?
by Mike Pavone on Tue 17th Mar 2009 13:44 UTC in reply to "Slooooow?"
Mike Pavone Member since:
2006-06-26

It is well known that a typical 1000 MIPS IBM Mainframe CPU corresponds to 4000GHz x86 CPU in terms of performance. 1 MIPS == 4MHz.

Complete garbage. First off, MIPS stands for Millions of Instructions Per Second. A modern x86 CPU can execute multiple instructions per clock cycle so your math makes no sense whatsoever.

Second, there are no readily available benchmarks comparing modern IBM mainframes and modern x86 CPUs. The most you'll get out of IBM is a comparison between the z10 and the z9.

The only places I might expect to see a huge difference in performance clock for clock are floating point decimal math and encryption. z10 mainframes have this implemented in specialized hardware.

This is not to say that mainframes don't have a performance advantage over x86 CPUs clock for clock, just that outside of a few narrow areas, the difference is unlikely to be anywhere near what you suggest.

Reply Score: 1

Cache
by OSGuy on Mon 16th Mar 2009 06:26 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

This is good but it would require a constant network connection. It would be better if you can download a cached version of the software you require and then run it of the cache and connect to the mainframe only when necessary.

Reply Score: 2

Wasn't a big deal years ago with Linux
by Will REMY on Mon 16th Mar 2009 16:00 UTC
Will REMY
Member since:
2009-03-16

Just have a look to this : http://librenix.com/?inode=51

and this http://librenix.com/?inode=1264

Why Windows; which requires even more ressources than a light Linux system; will be more efficient or will have a cheaper TCO on a Mainframe than using many desktop PCs????
What's the point ?

Reply Score: 1

Many Moons Ago...
by beosguy@gmail.com on Mon 16th Mar 2009 21:23 UTC
beosguy@gmail.com
Member since:
2008-07-17

we were running Lotus spreadsheet 123/M.... M for mainframe. God it must have been 1989 or 1990..
if I can recall!

Ran pretty good back then on a IBM MF.

Reply Score: 1

running Windows on mainframe
by Different on Tue 17th Mar 2009 08:37 UTC
Different
Member since:
2007-07-03

If they can virtualized an X86 environment on mainframe then they can run Windows comfortably on it since a Mainframe has much greater processing power

All they need is a software like ThinServer then they can even remotely run multiple sessions of it

http://www.aikotech.com/thinserver.htm

Reply Score: 1

RE: running Windows on mainframe
by Kebabbert on Tue 17th Mar 2009 09:47 UTC in reply to "running Windows on mainframe"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Ok, so it will work great then? Thanks for answering my question! :o)

Another question, a Mainframe CPU of 1000MIPS is equal to a 4GHz x86 single core CPU in terms of processing power (see my earlier post here). How many CPUs does a mainframe have? If it has 16 CPUs, it is similar to 4 quad cores at 4GHz. How many Windows instances can you run then?

Reply Score: 2