Are Mainframes & MiniComputers still in use? [closed]

Question

I've been looking into the history of computing. I'm just wondering if Mainframes & Minicomputers are still in use? I mean now a days PC's are very many times faster than mainframes in 90s. Even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_platform doesn't say anything about mainframes. They also use PCs as their servers.

I've no idea about Cloud Computing.

Corruption

Rule #1: Mainframes will never die. – Vineyard

@tur1ng: Can you give me some reasons? – Corruption

Answer 1

I was a mainframe programmer until about 3 years ago, and my former colleagues in my former department still work with those machines. They serve vital roles in the reservations and check-in processing for some large airlines.

Something interesting to note is that, while languages and other tools have arisen that allow developers to create very complex software, this has also raised the complexity of the task and customers' expectations. Also, modern management seems to be all about cost-cutting.

Given overly complex tasks and unrealistic time and budget constraints, very often development teams these days fail to successfully complete projects. Thus, while successfully executed modern projects may have much more functionality and "coolness factor," project success rates haven't improved since the 1970s.

As a result, a lot of old mainframe systems are still in operation because one or more projects intended to replace them failed. The revamping of the US national Air Traffic Control system, meanwhile (I think) successful, was for many years a nice example of such failure.

Flock

Answer 2

Yes, banks, businesses, and especially government institutions still use mainframes. (Heck, they still use COBOL).

The cool ones are now called "Supercomputers".

But, companies like IBM still sell more mundane mainframes.

Wendiwendie

Why would they still use COBOL? (I don't know COBOL or FORTRAN) – Corruption

@claws: See this SO answer: https://mcmap.net/q/588059/-the-unmentioned-parts-of-cobol-39-s-history-closed#2639946 . There are many reasons. The biggest ones being that these are often huge, critical, applications that work well enough and a botched replacement would be a disaster (as proven time and again, often to great taxpayer expense). – Wendiwendie

The short version of what Brock is saying is: "If it ain't broke, don't break it." and it is very important when you have tens of millions of dollars per week on the line... – Brushwork

Mate, there's nothing mundane about the new z10 EC. – Muddler

Answer 3

Until a few weeks ago I was an architect at a bank; they have 2x IBM 390 mainframes, and they will have them for a very long time to come.

Reason is the applications they run are core banking applications which were written over a 15-20 year period using Natural (that's a programming language) and Adabas (a database that uses the organisational concept of Files, rather than Tables).

They have such a massive investment in these applications that it is going to take them a very long time to move to something else. I'm not just talking code and data, but big teams of mainframe people that 'know the business'.

Given that these are core banking systems and have been very reliable, they have little appetite to move to emulation, or another platform.

Drawbacks of mainframes today are primarily exorbitant support and maintenance fees, and a dwindling skills base in the market.

They also still run VMS, so that's kind of a minicomputer.

Hope that helps.

Arni

IBM mainframes run VMS? I'm sure all ex-VAX programmers will be heartened to hear this! – Fusionism

Why don't they get their software re-written? I don't know how large their softwares are but surely in few years they'll have software according to modern standards that will run on future PCs. Mainframes are old & costly as you said. – Corruption

@Neil: I think that's intended as "the bank [where Rich worked] still runs VMS" – Eh

@Eh VMS was (is?) a minicomputer operating system for DEC's VAX product line. IBM mainframe computers, as mentioned by Rich, run VM, on top of which they host operating systems like CMS. – Fusionism

@claw: My answer tries to address your question here. Also, the cost effectiveness of PCs vs. mainframes isn't quite as clear-cut as many people think it is. – Flock

@Neil: You're right, of course, but CMS was also often called VM/CMS and I could understand if someone got that mixed up with "VMS." – Flock

@Corruption I'm sure they will one day, but it would a very expensive and risky project; and who's to say the resulting system will be any better than what they have now? They will rewrite only when the risk of NOT rewriting becomes greater than the risk of rewriting... whatever leads to that equation. – Arni

@NeilButterworth Sorry if I mislead. VMS runs on HP Hardware. HP bought Compaq, who once upon a time bought DEC. It has some OS level availability qualities that are only now becoming paralleled in the IA32/64 world. Once upon a time it was widely considered to be the most secure operating system in the world. – Arni

Answer 4

According to this article, mainframes were definitely alive 2008, and I don't think the situation has changed much since then.

Presidentelect

Answer 5

Another example: German Telekom uses a Mainframe-based system named KONTES designed in the 1970s to manage data about phone lines and customer data. Some auxillary systems have been replaced by more modern architectures, but the core systems are still Mainframes, so huge and complex that no company has felt up to the task of replacing them.

Jeremiad

And many of the distributed systems that replace them are even more complex! Actually, when we tried to cancel our Deutsche Telekom subscription, they said "you can't, because your haven't got one" so we said "funny, then maybe you can stop sending us the bill every month". The explanation was, the subscriptions are managed in a new system written by a large Blue company, but the billing was done in Kontes & the migration of our data had failed. – Pontonier

Answer 6

Some banking systems still run in more or less the same configuration in which they were build decades ago. It's not broken so they don't feel the need to upgrade.

Oxendine