Re: Cheaper Servers?

Vernon Hamberg wrote:

> Does 'console' mean 'green-screen 5250 device', in your view? Or just
> 'dedicated device for use by the service processor, in addition to the
> everyday processor the rest of us get to use?
>
> One of the beauties of OS/400 is its independence from hardware
> changes. So
> there seems no reason, other than time and money, that an LCD graphic
> screen could not function in a text mode (with appropriate translation
> from
> block-mode 5250), as the console.
>
Why should a console be text mode only. Windows does not use text mode
for its functions, and Linux can provide a graphic console display via
its X-Server. Whether an feature requires text mode or GUI depends upon
how it is programmed. For example, in Linux one might use text mode to
edit the hosts file, yet, if the application called ARKEAI is used for
back-ups, a GUI display is vastly preferable.

What I would like to see is a SVGA screen, native to OS/400, with
gaphics provided by some built in OS/400 feature. These graphics could
be a derivative of X, which would make it compatible with many other
systems. For key functions (eg. operating system installs, SAVSYS) it
may be that only text mode is available, but for more advanced functions
when the machine is active it should be graphic. It should run Ops Nav,
have text windows for running commands, run Code/400 etc.

This would create a true stand alone machine, independent of other
operating systems and hardware. Without the Heath-Robinson arrangement
of cables and machines required to obtain a console that we have at
present. In my experience, the only reliable console that the iSeries
has is a Twin-ax device and IBM want to get rid of these.

Syd Nicholson