|
Leif, > Joe and Jon, there is a problem here. If EVERYONE went with Joe's > solution, CFINT would not be the cashcow that provides the profit IBM > needs, so: >*once green screens are gone, IBM's profit is gone*. > > Can this really be what IBM wants? I don't think so. > Therefore I surmise that the CFINT rip-off is NOT vital to IBM > although it is nice to have. I tend to agree with this argument. IBM are trying to burn the candle at both ends, endorsing the moves to the fabled client/server, 'revitalisation', or whatever fancy name helps sell products for customer software, and not taking the lead themselves with OS/400; while at the same time knowing full well that because they (IBM) haven't got any plans whatsoever to drop/replace 5250 access, charge customers through the nose for using 5250. Can you imagine the uproar if, say Microsoft, started saying: You have a Pentium III, that's faster than a II, so we're only going to let you run 4 concurrent applications, but if you pay an extra premium for them, we'll let you run a few more, and if you empty your pockets even more you can run as many as you want... --phil [ Deleted uuencoded file 'winmail.dat' ]
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.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 on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.