Bob,
<<begin soapbox mode>>
Normally, I would agree with you about the mystery originating with
Rochester, MN. But lately, I've come to believe that not everything
that goes wrong with Client Access is IBM's fault. Do you think that
Microsoft tells competing developers of PC products all of the
programming hooks needed to make that competitor's products work 100%
correctly? Microsoft has a tendency to change things in its operating
systems that wreak havoc with other programs. Haven't you seen it
happen in the past?
For example: think about the IE4.0 problems that people are having
when Client Access is present on the same machine. What changed when
IE4.0 was put on? Client Access or some .DLL that was modified in the
OS so IE4.0 would work? Did Microsoft tell IBM about this .DLL change?
Or, did IBM do a sloppy job with Client Access and violate some
documented OS rule?
We are used to trusting the OS developer. In days gone by, OS
developers were usually careful to not change anything that would
cause an incompatibility with software that uses the OS. I don't feel
that Microsoft is that trustworthy.
So, I'm not so quick to put the blame on IBM anymore. Like everybody,
I get frustrated when a product doesn't work 100% until 8 or 9 PTFs
later. But, I can't say that it is 100% IBM's fault.
Until the OS that we are using on our PCs is free and is controlled by
some independent standards organization, these doubts in the motives
of the PC OS developer will always remain.
<<end soapbox mode>>
Mark Welte
----------
From: Bob Crothers[SMTP:bcrothers@netdirect.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 1998 7:51 AM
To: 'MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com'
Subject: RE: Win95 - CA/400 session limit
A mystery from Redmond? When your AS/400 based application
software blows up, do you blame IBM? Why do you blame Microsoft
for CAWin?
Your windows machine crashes on a regular basis? Remove CAWin
and see how often it crashes.
I think this mystery originates in Rochester MN.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: HankHeath@aol.com [SMTP:HankHeath@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 8:44 PM
To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
Subject: Re: Win95 - CA/400 session limit
Eric's point is well taken. I agree, although it is irrelevant.
The user likes
to run multiple queries simultaneously to "green screen"
sessions. How
efficient is this? not at all. However, they were doing it with
Win 3.1. Now
they cannot do it with Win 95. Yet another mystery from Redmond.
Hank Heath
In a message dated 98-02-02 22:08:12 EST, EKempter@smsocs.com
(Kempter, Eric)
wrote:
<< 4 sessions? Can one user efficiently utilize 4 sessions? It
seems
excessive. >>
application/ms-tnef
