RE: New COMMON Conference

You'd have to show me that one. As for speed, why do most airline counters
still use a character interface system?

Paul Nelson
Cell 708-670-6978
Office 512-392-2577
nelsonp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Raul A. Jager W.
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 5:41 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: New COMMON Conference

It used to be that the green screen was faster for some kinds of work.
But now you can do a web interface, (as litle friendly as the green
screen) and faster than any typist.

Paul Nelson wrote:

FWIW, for a construction company, nothing beats a green screen for banging
in time cards and invoices.

Paul Nelson
Cell 708-670-6978
Office 512-392-2577
nelsonp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott Klement
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:19 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: New COMMON Conference


FWIW.... I agree with your users. When I see green screen, I go
"ewwwwww", too.

However, I don't like that you are associating GreenScreen=IBMi, and
GUI=Windows.

You can (and should!) write GUI apps on IBM i. I've been telling people
to do that for 10+ years. Your users shouldn't know or care where the
data resides... what they should know/care about is that it's stable,
and always there when they need it. And IBM i excels at that.

Take iPhone, iPad, Android phones, Blackberries... all easy to use GUI
interfaces, none of them are Windows in any way shape or form. How
about XBox, Wii, PS3... all easy to use GUI devices, no Windows involved.

IBM i can be a major player in that world too, using GUI technologies
like web. The only reason you still code green screens is because you
(or someone else in your environment) has made that choice.

Note that we actively discourage green-screen sessions at COMMON. (Much
more so than Richard's .NET sessions!)


On 8/16/2012 3:51 PM, Gerald Kern wrote:

I understand completely Scott... and I know that Common is pretty 'IBM
centric'.

Our business is in a growth spurt and we have new users coming from

windows

platforms and they see our green screens and say 'ewwwww'...

They are the 'what I know is what I like' crowd, and they don't give a

hoot

about the tech behind the scenes. I read Nathans's article earlier this
week and kudos to him for doing such a fine job of modernizing apps and
keeping everything on one platform. But in healthcare we have so many
disparate systems running - some on the i, some in browsers, some in MS

SQL

environments, and some practice specific solutions and users like the look
and feel and intuitiveness of what they've learned using windows. And when
we suggest developing new apps they wonder why they can't have the windows
look and feel. That's not to say we've decided to go down the .net path,
but only I've been asked to explore the possibilities.

One of my first responses to him when he asked about .net was that I told
him I quit writing MS Access applications after Office 2k came out because
starting with Access95 and then Access97 and then Access2k, every time I
upgraded office I had to rewrite those apps because the upgrade broke them
- and I certainly don't want that hassle if that's the case with Visual
Studio and .net.