Hi
Bob,
Granted, Windows95
is not a perfect OS, far from it. Furthermore, I don't know of any that
exist! But I would tend to agree that Windows95 is not
causing the problems with CA. On the other hand I don't believe
the problem is CA either. In my humble opinion, the problem stems from NS
Router! I used NS Router and CA in the past with all kinds of problems,
crashes, router malfunctions, etc. However, after switching to a TCP/IP
connection to the AS/400, all of my problems went away! I can't remember
the last time my PC actually crashed. I did away with the router and did
away with all of my connection woes ;-)
>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?
Yes, I experienced this problem after installing IE 4.0
(no conflicts or problems when using TCP/IP). However, all of my other
software continued to work great! Why is CA/NS Router the only application
that failed?
>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.
You weren't responsible for that "pie in the
face" incident yesterday were you? ;-)
>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.
>>
>
midrange.com
