|
Jan, In a message dated 12/27/98 12:04:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, JanAS400@aol.com writes: > << Given the benefit of hindsight, our decision to > recommend C/S was probably a poor one at the time. Why do you ask? >> > Because i'm an as/400 developer (rpg type) i've been asked to be an expert > witness in a lawsuit. the suit is: one of the big6 accounting firms sold a > "client server solution" in Jan '94 to a company, proposing a switch from the > company's as/400 to unix, sybase, hp, and programs written in "C" for the 486 > "PC" (we call this "fat client" now). big problems, the code didn't work, > the systems crashed, databases didn't talk to each other, etc. I'm > researching whether they could have gone "client server" using the As/400 they > had at that time. or could they have used "pop up windows" and forgotten the > GUI interface? I'd appreciate any of your thoughts about this.. In > May '94 IBM announced ILE and V3R7 of OS/400. lots was happening with C/S > in early '94 at IBM. Thanks for responding. jan Regardless of who's memory is the best on this subject, your client _CERTAINLY_ could have used C/S by January of '94 on their AS/400. ODBC would have provided poor to dismal performance, depending upon which driver you chose, but it would have worked. An APPC-based application would have provided better performance, but I'm not aware of any commercial product available at the time that would provide this transport. My current primary client utilizes the ESS/400 product, which provides an APPC connect, to hook their VB touch-screens on the production line directly into the AS/400 database in real time. Suggesting a move from the AS/400 to UNIX simply to implement GUI was probably a big mistake on the part of the "Big 6" firm. UNIX is every bit as character-based as was the AS/400 at the time. The "dirty little secret" of "Big 6" (and other) firms is that they often offer a solution for which they have personnel available to implement. Had your consulting firm had a "gazillion" AS/400 developers available, an AS/400 solution probably would have been offered. Many articles have been published of late showing that SAP/R3 runs better on the AS/400 than on any other platform, yet SAP solution providers continue to offer UNIX- or NT-based implementations merely because "that's the platform they know". Same with the "Big 6 (now 5)". Your client would most certainly had been better off upgrading their "green screens" than going to GUI, but then I often question why people move to GUI when the productivity superiority of GUI over "green screen" hasn't been proven. I don't see why you need this, though. The firm obviously recommended an unworkable solution -- period. Whether or not the AS/400 could have provided it is moot. The consulting firm screwed up "big time", and unless you're trying to prove that you _NEEDED_ GUI (a difficult task in and of itself) there's no reason to even drag the AS/400 into it. JMHO, Dean Asmussen Enterprise Systems Consulting, Inc. Fuquay-Varina, NC USA E-Mail: DAsmussen@aol.com "What's real in politics is what the voters decide is real." -- Ben J. Wattenberg +--- | This is the Midrange System Mailing List! | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com. | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com. | To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com. | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
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.