Re: Interactive vs. Batch

But is the extreme premium IBM put on "keeping your existing green screens,
that is pushing shops away.
I think IBM could have gotten a lot more of the old 400s traded in if not
for this hit. When a price does
not appear to be reasonable, people get mad (and leave). We USED TO have a
system WE TUNED
to meet OUR business needs. (sorry for the shouting).
jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Hobbs, Netburg Internet Services" <bruce-list@netburg.net>
To: <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: Interactive vs. Batch


> Folks,
>
> I think you need to look at this from a marketing perspective. IBM has a
large installed base of AS/400s running traditional green-screen
applications. This group of customers is used to paying premium prices for
the AS/400 platform.
>
> On the other hand, IBM needs the e(logo)server i-Series to compete against
other servers, such as Windows NT/2000 on Intel hardware and many hardware
platforms running UNIX/Linux. These folks do not pay premium prices for
anything.
>
> How does IBM sell at low prices to the server market without allowing the
installed base the same low prices? This is where this whole interactive vs.
batch distinction comes from.
>
> From reading this thread, the best distinction between the two comes from
using display files. Traditional green-screen applications, whether they're
using dumb terminals, Client Access or TELNET, use display files. Server
applications do not. So the answer appears to be "Is your application using
display files? If yes, it is interactive. If no, it is a batch job."
>
> Comments?
>
> Bruce Hobbs (a newbie to this list)
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001, 9:34:41 PM GMT Jim Damato wrote:
>
>
> >Actually Steve, the Lawson GUI was what stirred up all of this for me.
> >After purchasing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Interactive
> >Feature we discovered that the Lawson GUI didn't use interactive CPW.
(We
> >bought one of the first models to use Interactive Feature, and at the
time
> >we, Lawson, IBM, and our business partner did not understand how to size
for
> >the cards.)  The GUI starts a sockets connection which is mapped to a
Lawson
> >server program through a TCP/IP service table entry.  Each connection
> >launches a server job on the AS/400 in a batch subsystem.  Lawson's green
> >screen presentation runs one presentation program with one display file.
> >All inquiry programs, prompts, entry, etc. operate through calls to
> >application programs (RPG) which pass screen formatting information back
to
> >the presentation program.  The GUI's server job accomplishes the same
thing
> >by calling the same application programs and passing the formatting
> >information to the client.  The same formatting information is mapped on
the
> >green screen into fields and function keys, and mapped on the client into
> >form elements, pull downs, and buttons.
> >
> >Lawson took pride in explaining that their client was thin (it was
> >positively obese from the installation and support side, but that's
another
> >story) and that it required very little client processing resources.  I
> >became confused as to why the same user actions and functions could be
> >accomplished through a TCP/IP sockets connection and a batch job, and yet
> >required a small fortune in extra hardware to run them interactively on a
> >terminal or emulator.  This led to a two-year quest to get someone at IBM
to
> >admit that Interactive Feature was software licensing and that there was
no
> >productive technology on the cards (boy, you should have heard John
Sears'
> >uncomfortable dodge when I asked him about it.)
> >
> >Nathan's web reference nails down IBM's definition very well, though the
> >definition still evades the whole truth.  "iSeries 400 or AS/400 Advanced
> >Servers and AS/400e servers are intended for use primarily in
client/server
> >or other non-interactive work environments. 5250-based interactive work
can
> >be run on these servers with limitations."  Just add the word "contrived"
in
> >front of the word "limitations."
> >
> >While we still had users thrashing between 5250 and the Lawson GUI I
notice
> >that the GUI did not perform as well, so I changed the Lawson server
> >subsystems, job descriptions, and classes to run GUI jobs at an
interactive
> >level, and within the interactive pool.  This brought GUI job performance
up
> >to an interactive level.
> >
> >In the client-server, web-based, n-tier, whatever whatever, non-5250
> >interface environment, do these issues come into play?  Are data mining
or
> >SQL-reporting tool interfaces configured to batch-oriented work
management
> >parameters, while inquiry, lookup, and data entry forms invoke a more
> >interactive-type job?
> >
> >Interactive vs. Batch used to describe types of work being done on the
> >system.  The terms have been co-opted to define a pricing structure.  In
the
> >process do you think we've dumbed-down system tuning for these different
> >types of work, are the concepts still applied, or are they moot with the
> >newer interfaces?
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
>  --- snip ---
> +---
> | 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
> +---

+---
| 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
+---