RE: Bad link to directions for XP Install

[Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Andy

That's what I thought - the new packaging makes us install everything. Some
of us would like to install only what we will use, but we're bucking IBM's
desires - it sounds like they want the functionality of CODE to be
completely subsumed in the new client.

In our case, the problems with getting the new client implemented
(communications, servers, unexpected weirdness) make it impossible for us
to take the time - we get the job done very well without this - of course,
we are a C/C++ shop, and even CODE isn't that useful for C development - no
validation, e.g. So most of us just use our favorite ASCII editor.

OTOH, CODE at V5R1 was fairly stable, I think. That's why I'd like to use
it, instead of the version in the new client. At the same time, I want to
take advantage of the newer Eclipse technology, with its project features,
etc. But no time, and too many rampup problems when I've tried. I mean, _1_
problem is too many when you need to rely on something. I have to say, MS
development products don't have all these startup problems.

I know the developers in Toronto are good people, and want to get this
right. Somehow, Murphy keeps showing up. And some of the interface is just
clumsy - always has been. The library list matter is irritating - can't
easily add it, even though the interface is just like other products where
you can just right-click and add. Oy!

Thanks

Vern

At 02:46 PM 9/28/02 +0100, you wrote:
> Vern
>
> I installed everything that was on the 3 CD's, only got to looking at
> Code at the moment, but as I said no problems at all on XP with the
> install.
>
> Regards
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vernon Hamberg [mailto:vhamberg@attbi.com]
> Sent: 28 September 2002 13:32
> To: code400-l@midrange.com
> Subject: RE: Bad link to directions for XP Install
>
> Andy
>
> Were you able to install CODE by itself, without all the rest of WDSC?
>
> Vern