|
-- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] I didn't say telnet. I said green screen. Could be Twin-ax. The point is OS/400 has no native GUI and cannot talk direct to a keyboard, mouse, and video display. A PC or 'dumb' terminal are always required. With this situation, a lap top type iSeries could never be successful. A native GUI of some form, and appropriate hardware support are essential. Syd Nicholson rob@dekko.com wrote: >This is a multipart message in MIME format. >-- >[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] >1) Why do people feel that telnet is the only 'native' access to the >iSeries? > > >Rob Berendt >-- >"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary >safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." >Benjamin Franklin > > > > >Dr Syd Nicholson <sydnic@ccs400.com> >Sent by: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com >04/10/2002 10:50 AM >Please respond to midrange-l > > > To: midrange-l@midrange.com > cc: > Fax to: > Subject: Re: Cheaper Servers? - Been there - done that > > >-- >[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] >To create a real portable iSeries IBM need to create a GUI AS/400. >Unless that happens we will always need another PC system to connect to >it. > >A native OS/400 GUI and native iSeries display, keyboard and mouse. A >prime requirement for a laptop iSeries. > >The only 'native' display access an iSeries has is green screen text >based. This must seriously hinder sales in an all GUI world. > >Perhaps an X-Server type approach and a third party product such as KDE >or Gnome would be the way forward. > >Politically I don't think IBM have any interest in this. They work on >the basis that everyone uses Windoze so they only provide GUI software >(eg. CA/400, Ops Nav, Code/400) to run under Windoze. In so doing they >FORCE all their customers to use Windoze. Please correct me if I am >wrong, but I am not aware of any IBM created CA/400 software for other >operating systems (eg. Linux). They insist we use Ops Nav, and Ops Nav >only runs under Windoze. > >Personally I concluded that even maintaining a small Windoze network was >too expensive on my time. I now use Linux (much better, and more stable) >and question IBM's commitment to Linux. They seem to want it on their >servers (the words bandwagon and jump spring to mind) but I don't know >of any serious client side Linux developments. I would love to see a >CA/400 for Linux. > >Syd Nicholson > > > >Shields, Ken wrote: > >>I guess this explains why the Portable /400 box flopped. >>The technology has changed considerably, hell, they could probably get >> >Dell to build it for them...shut my mouth! > >>LOL >>Ken >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Dr Syd Nicholson [mailto:sydnic@ccs400.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 11:04 AM >>To: midrange-l@midrange.com >>Subject: Re: Cheaper Servers? - Been there - done that >> >> >>I got one of these. Great wee box. >> >>Biggest drawbacks. >> >> - Too much heavy cabling to attache console, tape drive, etc. Almost >>makes it non-portable. If the console is not there it still works but >>the yellow light is on and it displays an SRC code. If I go anywhere >>with it I take a MAU, token ring cable, and a lap top as well. A lot of >>stuff to lug about. Not taking the tape drive (which is a another >>significabtly sized box) means I cannot do any back up, saves or >>restores whilst away. The absence of the console cable when away from >>office limits functions that may be required if something goes wrong. If >>I don't leave all these things behind the machine is certainly not >>portable. >> >>- Insufficient disk capacity - only 2 GB. Can't load this with much in >>the way of applications/data. IBM always under sizes disks and charges a >>small fortune for them. >> >>- Insufficent memory - its very slow - 24MB >> >>It is still a useful machine still, even thought it is stuck on V3R2. >>IBM only went part way with this one. I think it must have been an >>experiment to see what kind of response they would get. Unfortnately, >>they didn't make it portable enough, or give it sufficient capacity to >>be realistic and this restricted sales. Perhaps another example of IBM >>not quite understanding their customer requirements. >> >>Syd Nicholson >> >> >> >>Vernon Hamberg wrote: >> >>>FYI - From v3r2 Handbook >>> >>>>AS/400 Advanced Portable is a full-function, multi-user AS/400 that is >>>>easily transportable and capable of running all AS/400 applications. It >>>>can be used for development and testing of new applications, as well as >>>>training and customer support activities consistent with supporting >>>>multiple, remote, or distributed systems. >>>> >>>>AS/400 Advanced Portable is offered in predefined packages, five >>>>twinaxial-based systems (9401-P03, T01, T02, T03, T11, and T12), >>>>three LAN >>>>based systems (9401-P03, L01, L02, and L03), and a server (9401-10S, >>>>S01). >>>> >>>Now, y'all can tell me why this did not fly the last time IBM tried >>>this. I >>>don't know, personally. >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing >> >list > >>To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com >>To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, >>visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l >>or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com >>Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives >>at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l. >>_______________________________________________ >>This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing >> >list > >>To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com >>To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, >>visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l >>or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com >>Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives >>at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l. >> > >-- > >_______________________________________________ >This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing >list >To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com >To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, >visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l >or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com >Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives >at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l. > > > >_______________________________________________ >This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list >To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com >To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, >visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l >or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com >Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives >at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l. > --
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.