RE: MIDRANGE-L Digest V1 #635

[Bob Cozzi <BobCozzi@xxxxxxx>]

Booth,

Because we depend on Rochester to produce stuff that just works.
We expect that. Even in the shadow of evil (i.e., Microsoft) we expect 
Rochester's great engineers to product relatively painless code.

The experience level with writing Windows-based code at Rochester, in my 
speculation, is low. However, even experienced Windows developers will tell 
you, you basically can't write a Windows app the never blows up. Whereas 
you can almost never write an AS/400 app that doesn't work because of 
pointer or operating system conflicts.

These are the reasons we use AS/400. "How long can you unexpectedly afford 
to be out of business" as someone on this list put in his tag line.

The 400 is great. Unfortunately, we have to use Windows for the 
workstation. Hence, CA/400 for Windows 95 needs to run like an AS/400 app, 
not a Windows app. And I mean, "run" as in internally performance and 
function, not the user interface.

BOB COZZI
www.RPGIV.com


On Thursday, September 04, 1997 7:09 PM, boothm@earth.goddard.edu 
[SMTP:boothm@earth.goddard.edu] wrote:
> I have a question or two on this:
>
> The AS/400in all other areas is reliable and straight forward without too
> much hassle.
>
> It seems to me that only the Win95 client that is having the problem, so
> why is everyone upset with IBM?  Why not get upset with the people at
> Microsoft that are making the moving target?
>
>

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com
|    and specify 'unsubscribe MIDRANGE-L' in the body of your message.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---