Re: Cheaper Servers? -- MIDRANGE-L

Although it had other problems, Workstation Gateway had some nice GUI
versions of systems screens. Subfiles or UIM lists turned into listboxes.
Simple paradigm shift. IBM's already done some of this, so the knowledge
base is there, just get the right teams to talk to each other.

Every aspect of 5250 could be graphical, I think. PC5250 only looks
text-like - it has lots of buttons and menu options that are GUI. It has
cut & paste in the emulation area. There is no reason a 5250 emulator could
not put in textboxes and listboxes for entry fields and subfiles, labels
for output only and captions, etc. SeaGull is doing it, other screen
scrapers are doing it. PC5250 lets you make buttons out of funciton key
names. Duh!  <g>

The techniques already exist, right?

It's true that a pretty face sells better than any kind of quality under
the covers. Look at OS/2, which is superior to Windows, but did not look as
good, did not function as intuitively, IMO. There's still nothing better
than a green-screen for heads down data entry. A GUI, without good keyboard
shortcuts and tab order, requires eye contact, and that's is slow.

At 01:47 AM 4/13/02 +0100, you wrote:


>BOBC@ri-net.com wrote:
>
>>
>>Why would need a gui to do that?  The iSeries is not a PC, it is a server.
>>We have always attached a display devise be it a dumb 5250 terminal or some
>>other device.  Why must servers have a self contained gui?  You can still
>>do 90% of everything you need to do from a 5250 interface which could be
>>done with any dumb terminal adapter that IBM could integrate into the box.
>>The iSeries is not self contained in its current incarnation by any stretch
>>of the imagination, why would this model be any different?
>Because this is what sells machines. This is what the punters want. They
>see NT and like it. They see green screen OS/400 and don't want to
>know.  They don't see how good (or bad) a system is. They see a pretty
>face and prefer to use it.
>
>Because they see NT machines with their own consoles, administered from
>these console, independent from other hardware. They expect this feature
>in other machines.
>
>Because a GUI can be made more intuitive, easier for novices and new
>customers to use. Text input, unfamiliar command strings, lack of
>knowledge, and steep learning curve frightens potential customers into
>the hands of "simpler" systems.
>
>Because IBM are gradually making the vast majority of iSeries
>administration graphical by way of OPs Nav. It would make sense that OPs
>Nav, or a derivative of it, should be able to run on a real iSeries console.
>
>I don't imagine that all functions would be graphical. The console would
>need to handle text (5250?) as well. In restricted state a GUI might not
>be available. NT handles this text/GUI change excellently, why shouldn't
>the iSeries be able to do it as well.
>
>Syd