Well...IBM didn't feel that way. And you know, that's the bigger issue. To paraphrase a (kinda bad) movie title..."What Does IBM Want?" Is IBM getting the results they want? If not, are they changing things to get different results? One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. However, if you do the same thing over and over again and get the same results, and those are the results you want, well that's consistency! On 12/8/06, James H H Lampert <jamesl@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Regarding a "native GUI" for OS/400, I've always felt that if IBM had pushed development on the 5250 data stream, and kept it at least on a parity with, or perhaps even ahead of, the X-terminal data stream, and if they'd provided adequate APIs and display file keywords to drive it, and kept SDA updated, (instead of [as with the 5250 WP mode, and MI] doing everything they could to keep outside programmers OUT of 5250 graphics and InfoWindow II mouse support), they'd HAVE HAD a native GUI for the 400 TEN YEARS AGO! -- JHHL -- This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2013 by MIDRANGE dot 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 here. If you have questions about this, please contact