4 ms·
Still, those enterprise junior executives didn't get fired for choosing mainframes! Their companies made bad decisions in hindsight, but they (and we) blame th
by newacct583 6y ago
Still, those enterprise junior executives didn't get fired for choosing mainframes! Their companies made bad decisions in hindsight, but they (and we) blame those bad choices on IBM having failed to meet the needs of the market, not on whatever random Fortune 500 companies bought S/390's instead of PC servers.
Which is the point. IBM was the conservative choice, and they remained so even past the point where they were the wrong choice. If you're a junior executive trying to climb the ladder, that kind of "decision security" has real value.
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago> Still, those enterprise junior executives didn't get fired for choosing mainframes! This! > Their companies made bad decisions in hindsight, but they (and we) blame those bad choices on IBM having failed to meet the needs of the market, not on whatever random Fortune 500 companies bought S/390's instead of PC servers. Those companies didn't make bad decisions... the mainframes worked. The might have been more expensive, and slower than a bunch of PC servers, but they did the job. We now know, in hindsight, that PC servers were a better choice, but which one of us is willing to risk our own money/job for something that is currently something new? There was even a time when tablet computers (think ipad, not x series thinkpads) were "the future of computing", and that "they would replace the need for PCs for everyone"... now (in hindsight) we know that tablets are useless for most people (except for consuming entertainment), and that work computers are still boring PCs with keyboards and mice.