Re: MIDRANGE-L Digest V1 #635 -- MIDRANGE-L

At 03:51 PM 9/7/97 -0400, Dean, you wrote:
>Booth,
>
>In a message dated 97-09-04 23:18:10 EDT, you write in part:
>
>> The AS/400in all other areas is reliable and straight forward without too
>>  much hassle.

I think that's going by the by, when AS/400 screens don't even work the
same from app to app. Of course, there have been odd discrepancies from the
start, so maybe that's the standard? >8-(

>>  
>>  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?
>
><<Warning, soapbox mode ensues>>
>Because the CA product in general has ALWAYS been sub-par by AS/400
>standards.  After nearly 10 years, it still has far too many components that
>are merely "bloated and patched" enhancements to the same PC/Support product
>that ran on the /36 and /38.  

Amen and amen!

                               People blame IBM because it CAN do better with
>specialty PC products than it has with something that everyone needs -- check
>out the Visual Age suite!  CA is CONSTANTLY behind the 3rd party connectivity
>vendors in features, useability, and ease of installation.  We're just fed up
>with it!

Who we gonna call? Gerstnerbusters?
>
>Yes MS has provided a moving target of late, but what about the FIRST seven
>years?  IBM continues to provide "too little, too late" with CA, and people
>are upset that they must purchase 3rd party products (who themselves don't
>seem to have much problem with MS's targets) when they would rather use a
>"true blue" application.
><<End soapbox mode>>
(Not quite, Dean!-my turn)
I don't think I've seen __A_N_Y__ other product that has so many
incompatiblities with Windows, or even with DOS. It took an IBMer a week to
fight with putting PC Support (not even CA) on a PS/1. Why, unless they're
programming STUPID, do they have so many problems with disparate hardware?
Are they trying to be far too cute with BIOS calls?

I've been getting 2 stories from IBM support. The first one is "That
hardware not supported here." The second one is "The problem can't be CA.
Since we just use the Windows API, we don't touch the hardware directly."
Those 2 don't compute! Somebody's got to be getting cute, and we're
suffering for it.

IBM, are you listening? (Sorry for shouting) _K_EEP _I_T _S_IMPLE _S_TUPID!
Recently I said to Bob Cozzi that I don't think IBM can write a Windows app
to save their lives. Visual Age has some great-looking stuff, but it seems
to be a hog--I'm on a 166 Pentium and it takes forever to load VA for Java.
IBM still can't seem to get it through it's collective thick head that
they're not the only player on the block. They tend to be generally
impolite (at best) when it comes to other apps. Example 1--Client Access
for Win3.x used to, and still may, put CAWIN at the head of the path,
instead of the recommended and safe method of putting DLL's, etc., in
/windows/system where they belong. Caused me all kinds of headaches.
Example 2--This goes back to MAPICS, which NEVER restored the environment
from which it was called--and that's SOOOOO simple to do.

Uffda, I'm getting tired! Didn't know this was all pent up in here!

Seriously, is there any way to change this pattern? One of our Ass't VPs
said he heard an IBM mucky-muck say they're no longer pointing fingers.
HUH! Client Access surely is!

All done!

Cheers

Vernon Hamberg
Systems Software Programmer
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
400 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55401
(612) 371-1111 x480
+---
| 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
+---