Re: CFINT: I understand it now...

From: Joe Pluta <joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com>
> From: Reeve Fritchman
> It's simple: compared to 5250 applications, server applications
> are grossly inefficient.

In what way?  In fact, a well written server program is far MORE efficient
than a traditional monolithic green screen application.

===> I think you are overstating the point here. They are about the
same when talking processing efficiency. The server approach is
far MORE efficient when it comes to maintenance, but that is not
the issue here.

Let us assume for a moment that everybody went where 'IBM
wants them to go' and converted everything to run client/server.
That would remove the CFINT revenue and if as some (e.g.
Jon Pais) have claimed that revenue is essential to the viability
of the platform, then the platform will die when everybody is
doing client/server. The only saving grace is that doing client/
server may require a lot more processing power forcing people
to buy bigger boxes thus enhancing IBM's revenue to offset the
CFINT tax,

If as you say, server programs are far MORE efficient, people
can get by with smaller boxes further eroding IBM's revenue
and thus the viability of the platform. I think I may be missing
something here, but I can't see what.