Of course you could run your fave IBM OS on any windows or Linux box by using Hercules/390 and that's freeware.

OK, IBM don't like it but it does work well.

One can sympathise with IBM. First Micro$oft stuffed them over PC-DOS with MS-DOS. Then Micro$oft stuffed them over OS/2 and Presentation Manager with Windows. Seems Micro$oft has developed a taste for the dirty business. What goes around comes around. One day it'll be Micro$oft's turn to get shafted.

Boys, boys, boys, when are y'all going to grow up? 42 Cooperate on products [which are only ideas virtualised] rather than litigate against them. Dog eat dog is just so .... incredibly dumb

I usually would sympathise with the underdog (PSI) ... except M$ is funding them. So screw them, M$ isn't doing this for "interoperability", it wants to rob IBM from its main business. And why on earth would I want to run ESA/390 software on an inferior Intel chip??? I'd think that would be a case for organizations without the dosh to buy/maintain one of the big 390 monsters (or zSeries, how they're called now).

I do think PSI has a place, but M$ definitely doesn't.

Boy, Microsoft has some big ones. Their "closed" Xbox 360 is powered by an IBM processor. Bend over IBM!

PSI (aka Microsoft & friends) is accusing IBM of abusing its mainframe monopoly to keep a competitor out of a market... what a laugh.. hasn't that been MS's usual way of doing business??

I'm by no means an MS hater, or come to that an IBM hater, but it does seem like MS are willing to have IBMs software run on non-IBM systems, but they don't exactly go out of their way to support/allow their Windows software to be run on say, linux, do they?

It's hilarious to watch people defending IBM because they hate Microsoft so much. True believers. Eric Hoffer said you can have a political mass movement without a god, but you always have to have a devil. I guess you believe IBM is all about altruism because they run Linux. You believe Microsoft was evil for writing Windows NT? Or you think it's a bad thing that IBM didn't own the operating system (DOS) for the PC? I guess HP and Dell and Compac and Gateway didn't have anything to contribute.

Do you guys write comments on computer tech stories when you aren't busy writing about UFOs and 9/11 conspiracy theories?

@ Don

Whatever.... none of your slams, digs, gripes, etc fit the comments that were made here..... jealous? Never mind that your few facts are actual fiction.

To everybody else.... WOW "....joint sales agreement with PSI that will see both companies hawk Windows Server 2008 on PSI's machines." Can you imagine having to do ctrl-alt-del on a mainframe. I just can't see a MS OS running on hardware that is supposed to be able to run 10x52x7x24.

Already got the coat & in the taxi.

Well "Anonymous Coward", you clearly don't know much about operating systems. Maybe you are thinking somehow that they are planning to run Windows 95 on the mainframe? The NT family of systems has been running successfully on big iron a lot longer than Linux. You may recall that Linux used to be a single-proc-only OS. NT, BSD, Linux and Solaris are all perfectly able to drive large enterprise server configurations.

But here's the thing...

Why are register comments so bad? The Register is highly respected. It's articles are read by top people in the field every day. And yet, the commentary is like stuff kids write under a YouTube video they didn't like. It's disappointing. The Register could be a forum where top people discuss and debate.

I'd like to see them moderate the comments much more strenuously, but I know they won't because it has become a sort of amusement in itself, like the Jerry Springer show. Oh look at the Windows and Mac fanboys insult each other. Hey, someone spelled Microsoft with a "$", wow never saw that before (yuck yuck).

Obviously you don't know much about operating systems as well. Pot calling the kettle black? I think so.....

Putting the NT family in the same class as the other "enterprise" environments is obtuse and lacks merit. BSD, Linux, OK sure not going to comment, don't want the flames. "Cluck!" Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, MVS and i'm sure other "ENTERPRISE" environments have schedulers that actually work. Windows, don't kid yourself and do your homework. HP-UX has 4 and AIX i think has 6 as well as Solaris (I know) tunable scheduling classes to choose from. You wouldn't know that because all YOU drink is M$ cool aid and think that there is 2 versions of Not responding. To prove this to be true, go find or write a load program/script (perl <-- ever heard of it?) and run it on 2K3 server and then try it on Solaris with the FSS class. You should use your MCSE as toilet paper and leave the real computing to the real enterprise professionals.

Everyone else here seems to know the difference. Desk jockeys who think M$ products installed on a system that mounts in a rack constitutes enterprise should stick to their IE and Norton problems. BTW 2 things you don't see on an enterprise OS

Don,

That sounded just like an erudite rant hiding/fronting an offensive against aired views on El Reg...... which is quite normal for Innovative Leads bypassing legacy Systems.

Haven't you realised [of course, you have] that the Register IS such a forum where top people discuss and debate....... in their own inimicable, QuITe surReal Style. .... Spooky Humour/Double Entendre/Steganographic Linguistic Stealth...... although one would have to admit that it is an acquired literary taste.

"I'd like to see them moderate the comments much more strenuously, but I know they won't because it has become a sort of amusement in itself, like the Jerry Springer show." ...... Some would exchange amusement for education or edutainment .

I thought amanfromMars was on drugs - he was making sense!!!!

M$'s play is smart as it is obvious - half the job of converting any customer from a closed system to your own (only slightly less closed) system is to get them off the proprietary hardware and onto a platform that gives a level playing field. Once you have them there, you can start pushing with cheaper costs for support, administration, etc, to the point where you can go the final stage and replace their original software with your own products. And before all the h8ters start on M$, they should realise M$ have stolen this from the Linux crowd - we have been using this to knock off UNIX systems and get them onto Linux on x86/Itanium for ages! M$ are using our tactics to push up into the datacenter just as Linux is eating up the edge systems, and IBM mainframes are a massive and easy target.

We run our IBM software (in the past) on an IBM PIII X-Server with emulation on top of Linux. Seemed to run all our IBM software we use to run on our old IBM Mainframe hardware. All it takes is some emulation software and some hardware devices to hook up to our old Mainframe Controller and Printer. Only took about 2-3 weeks to switch over. In our case we did use the same IBM Operating System.