RE: Cheaper Servers?

Rob
        I see no reason why, the console authority could not be built into the 
user profile.
        The issue has been discussed about how small companies are reluctant to 
spend the large
        chunk of change, the smaller boxes demand.This point is up for 
discussion.
        This fact goes to the root of competition, or lack of it.
        IMHO Emulation, OpsNav, etc.are just Ascii to Ebcdic overhead.
        Heresy you say,....think about it a moment.
        Windows is a Microsoft acronym, to a large degree patented; however, I 
personally do not believe that any
        worthwhile undertaking in this business is unrealistic.
        IBM's version of GUI could be called anything their marketing 
department cared to coin it.
        There seems to be a lack of initiative to tackle the big boy on the 
block.
        Eventually however, we can spin our discussions any which way we want, 
but the future will always belong to
        the people who "step up to the plate".
        How about a Windoze emulation program to the Iseries /400!
Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: rob@dekko.com [mailto:rob@dekko.com]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 9:38 AM
To: midrange-l@midrange.com
Subject: Re: Cheaper Servers?


This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Here's another thought.

What are the goals?
- to have os/400 on everyone's desktop, unrealistic
- to have a portable 400 for demo's
- to have a 400 for small businesses, already done.

Let's remember, one of the goals of Op's console was to be able to
remotely operate your 400, even in a dedicated mode.  Basically do
everything except stuff the CD's.  Will you still get this with the
xWindows concept?

Let's say you want to market product.  What will your client base be using
on their desktops?  Browsers, 5250, Client/Server, xWindows?  I would say
a bulk of the new sales would be using the first three.  You need to demo
in that then.  Therefore I don't see where using a separate box is a
drawback.  Granted, let's suppose that IBM limited the system console to
Op's console.  You don't need a system console to IPL.  You only need it
to perform upgrades.  Therefore I would see two attachments - 1 for the
op's console, one for the ethernet.  Granted, in a demo situation, you
would have a wire going out of the box into a small hub, and a wire from
that into your client.  But let's face it, in most demos you are going to
have other cables for the overhead projector and all that other junk.  So
it should be hidden in the clutter.


Rob Berendt
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
_______________________________________________
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.