sonnyOrullivan
But this doesn't say anything about "unbelievably powerful" or "feature-full" as in the OP?
The niche customer claim probably is "will never move off of it because nobody ever wants to touch millions of lines of COBOL" then that's fine. It's likely sane from a business perspective to continue using them as long as maintenance burden is manageable. Luckily managers in those more conservative companies consider full rewrites dangerous, rightly so. But in order to claim otherwise (i.e. unbelievably powerful and thus for everybody) we need to see numbers.
"Completely isolated in hardware" as in isolated by a software hypervisor (PR/SM) that doesn't have a whole lot of hardware support?
> Mainframes are built for different kinds of workloads. They are not cloud machines. They are batch machines with 6 or more nines of uptime.
That's kind of the point. What exactly is the niche, i.e. which new customer with exactly what software and latency requirements would switch from their current system to a z? IBM won't tell you apart from buzzword bingo.
"feature-full" is also quite a stretch when it comes to software when most modern software needs to be ported or run in a Linux LPAR.
In addition I'd question that not getting access easily is the main reason for the lack of adoption. It might be part of the problem but the other problem is that the thing is a niche product and IBM doesn't seem to be utterly successful in either explaining what the niche is nor how to extend it.