RE: Win95 - CA/400 session limit

Bob,

<<begin soapbox mode>>

Normally, I would agree with you about the mystery originating with 
Rochester, MN. But lately, I've come to believe that not everything 
that goes wrong with Client Access is IBM's fault. Do you think that 
Microsoft tells competing developers of PC products all of the 
programming hooks needed to make that competitor's products work 100% 
correctly? Microsoft has a tendency to change things in its operating 
systems that wreak havoc with other programs. Haven't you seen it 
happen in the past?

For example: think about the IE4.0 problems that people are having 
when Client Access is present on the same machine. What changed when 
IE4.0 was put on? Client Access or some .DLL that was modified in the 
OS so IE4.0 would work? Did Microsoft tell IBM about this .DLL change? 
Or, did IBM do a sloppy job with Client Access and violate some 
documented OS rule?

We are used to trusting the OS developer. In days gone by, OS 
developers were usually careful to not change anything that would 
cause an incompatibility with software that uses the OS. I don't feel 
that Microsoft is that trustworthy.

So, I'm not so quick to put the blame on IBM anymore. Like everybody, 
I get frustrated when a product doesn't work 100% until 8 or 9 PTFs 
later. But, I can't say that it is 100% IBM's fault.

Until the OS that we are using on our PCs is free and is controlled by 
some independent standards organization, these doubts in the motives 
of the PC OS developer will always remain.

<<end soapbox mode>>

Mark Welte


----------
From:  Bob Crothers[SMTP:bcrothers@netdirect.net]
Sent:  Thursday, February 05, 1998 7:51 AM
To:  'MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com'
Subject:  RE: Win95 - CA/400 session limit

A mystery from Redmond?  When your AS/400 based application
software blows up, do you blame IBM?  Why do you blame Microsoft
for CAWin?

Your windows machine crashes on a regular basis?  Remove CAWin
and see how often it crashes.

I think this mystery originates in Rochester MN.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From:   HankHeath@aol.com [SMTP:HankHeath@aol.com]
Sent:   Wednesday, February 04, 1998 8:44 PM
To:     MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
Subject:        Re: Win95 - CA/400 session limit

Eric's point is well taken. I agree, although it is irrelevant.
The user likes
to run multiple queries simultaneously to "green screen"
sessions. How
efficient is this? not at all. However, they were doing it with
Win 3.1. Now
they cannot do it with Win 95. Yet another mystery from Redmond.

Hank Heath

In a message dated 98-02-02 22:08:12 EST, EKempter@smsocs.com
(Kempter, Eric)
wrote:

<< 4 sessions?  Can one user efficiently utilize 4 sessions?  It
seems
 excessive. >>

application/ms-tnef