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

This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
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 thread ...


Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page