Charles, you got me looking again.

I don't know about whether to view CODE as a separate product or as a feture - IBM does the latter, I'll live with that.

Nonetheless, I agree that it should be more explicit. And there is even more confusion here -are you guys in Toronto listening? I know you are. ;-)

On the "Features" page for the client is a link to CODE and one to VARPG. There is also a link to "Server development tools". The latter points to things like the WAS test environment, and there is NO WAY that runs in 256MB. (The requirements page even says this.) So, the exact same phrase is used for completely different aspects of the same product, with contradictory recommendation. It'd be better to say something like "Classic Tools" - 256MB, 233MHz PII on the requirements page, IMO.

Now the main reason I believe these minima are for the classic tools is, they are the same as the requirements for the separately packaged version of those tools in the old WDT, IIRC.

So, bottom line, maybe--if all you do is RPG, CL, and DDS, install the whole blame package (you have to anyway, until the latest version) with classic tools (I forget the name on the install dialog) and do not start WDSC itself, rather start the classic tools stand-alone. You will not need a monster machine to do this. But the minute you want to try the new client (which is getting better and better), get the horsepower - you'll need it.

And, BTW, I will not use either client for CL- formatting gets really strange, compared to SEU. I like what I'm used to, behaviorally and the results I get. I understand there are changes in the RSE client forthcoming but not in CODE - deprecation lives.


At 11:16 AM 5/28/2004, you wrote:

I understand what you are saying.  But, I disagree that the minimums are for
CODE/400 as opposed to RSE.

In my mind WDSc is one thing CODE is another.  The fact that they come on
the same DVD is immaterial, they are two separate products.  Even if IBM
does list CODE as a "feature" of WDSc.

Nor does IBM push CODE as the tool to use for server development.  The
opposite is true, LPEX and RSE are being pushed.

If you're correct and IBM is pulling the minimums from CODE, then that needs
to be explicitly stated along with realistic minimums for RSE/LPEX.


> -----Original Message----- > From: Vern Hamberg [mailto:vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 11:04 AM > To: Websphere Development Studio Client for iSeries > Subject: RE: [WDSCI-L] WDSc workstation requirements > > > It CAN be done, and well - but using CODE/400, not the RSE > version. IOW, > start it up with CODEEDIT or use the DE (or whatever) user > option out of > PDM. CODEDSU starts the Designere. And CODEPROJ gives you a > project manage > that is similar to RSE functionally (limited, I know, but easy on the > resources). > > That's what the first item means, IMO - avoid Java at all > costs if doing > only server (RPG/COBOL/CL/DSPF/PRTF) development. You CAN get > there from > the RSE perspective, but it'll cost you mightily. > > So, as long as you are not doing the newer stuff, this'll do fine. Of > course, there's no substitute for more memory and faster > drive rotation. > The chip speed is less important. > > The recommendations are VERY minimum. Ask your boss if he > would use the > published minimum recommendations Microsoft gives for running > XP - then he > might see your need in the right perspective. Would he even > consider using > the following: > > > > >Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional > > > >PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed > recommended; 233 MHz > >minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel > Pentium/Celeron > >family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible > processor recommended > > > >128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB > minimum supported; > >may limit performance and some features) > > > > 64MB!!! Indeed!! > > HTH > Vern

This thread ...


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