× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: Year 2000 400 C/S
  • From: ConnectY2K@xxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 08:33:20 -0400 (EDT)

In a message dated 97-06-09 10:25:51 EDT, you write:

<< Subj:        Re: Year 2000
 Date:  97-06-09 10:25:51 EDT
 From:  /DD.id=KAHN@tco.infonet.com (Kahn, David)
 Sender:        mcsnet!midrange.com!midrange-l-owner@Mcs.Net
 Reply-to:      MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
 To:    midrange-l@midrange.com (Midrange list)
 
 
 On Jun 07 1997 John Carr wrote:
 
 >When you say "Users who are used to Powerpoint",  Are you refering the PC
 >application that takes 20-40 seconds to come up(on a good day) on
 >my PC at work?
 >And are you being held to THOSE kind of response time standards on the
 >AS/400? (By the way, ask your user to write Monthend Manufacturing Close
 >out in Powerpnt or Excel)
 
 They can be unnaturally forgiving of anything with a sexy interface. I hear 
 that users of the new client/server version of JDE who prefer it to the 
 green screen version typically site response times as one of their chief 
 dislikes of the old system, even when response times are 2 to 3 times 
 greater in the new version. Depressing.
 
 >Where are we getting a bad response time?  On a interactive program which
 >should only do 20-30(tops) I/O's per enter key?  Or are you doing 100-1000
 >I/O's per enter key where you'd notice the hit?  If so WHY are you doing
 >that many even now?
 
 I dream of 100-1000 I/O's per enter key. At our site a badly selected MR or 
 PO enquiry can read over 100,000 records to load the first subfile page.
 
 >I do all those neat Performance things so that I can take (for a short time

 
 >frame maybe) a performance hit on strategically important things like
 >date and time types.
 
 I agree with everything you're saying, John. However, my previous post 
 advising people to go the simplest possible route was based on the harsh 
 reality that the deadline is looming even before they've started. If these 
 installations were capable of planning a Y2K conversion as part of the 
 strategic evolution of their systems they'd have done it about 18 months 
 ago.
 
 Would you rather be in business with an out-dated but usable system, or out 
 of business with a great design half-implemented?
 
 
 Dave Kahn - Tengizchevroil, Kazakstan
 =========
 
 
ADDING  
PCs to the  400  complicates Y2k efforts . PCs bring their own unique from
individual PC to PC problems. PLUS the errors et to be fixed in the many
versions of COTS  software waitng for manufacturer fixes and databse  repair
by/for you.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This is the Midrange System Mailing List!  To submit a new message,   *
* send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe from     *
* this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify            *
* 'unsubscribe MIDRANGE-L' in the body of your message.  Questions      *
* should be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.