RE: Win95 - CA/400 session limit

Chris,

On the AS/400, it is extremely difficult for an application to 
crash the machine.  I do not argue this.  It is one of the 
things that all of us really love about the AS/400.

With Win95 and to a lesser degree, WinNT, it is very possible 
for an application to crash the machine.  This is one of the 
weak points of Windows.

However, when an application crash's the operating system, is it 
the OS's fault or the applications?  True, the OS shouldn't 
crash, but it is still the application that should get the 
majority of the blame.

BTW, if I write a program that first does a CHGJOB RUNPTY(1) and 
then goes into a tight closed loop with no I/O, you would think 
the "machine crashed" when I ran it.  Technically, OS/400 has 
not crashed, but it is no longer available either.  The other 
users would sure think it crashed.  And the quickest way to make 
the machine available would probably be to "pull the plug". 
 IBM's fault?  I hardly think so.  But this is what you are 
accusing Microsoft of.

Windows is no where near the quality of OS/400.  But you did not 
pay thousands of dollars for it either.

Do I want to see Windows improve?  You bet.  But, is it the 
"root of all evil" that some on this list say?  No.

And on the subject of Microsoft's "marketing tactics", lets not 
forget that IBM is not exactly an angel either.  Remember their 
problems with the DOJ and Anti-Trust laws in the 60's, 70's & 
80's.  IBM is the one who invented "guerilla marketing". 
 Microsoft just refined and took it to a new level.

The main difference between MS and IBM is that MS is currently 
in a position to dictate to the market.  The key word is 
"currently".  IBM fell, so can Microsoft...and they probably 
will.  The question being when and how hard.

I think the lesson to be learned is that is NOT the DOJ who will 
dethrone Billy G but the market.  And more likely, it will be a 
missed paradigm shift.  IBM missed the PC.  What will MS miss? 
 It could be Java that dethrones them.  It might be something 
else.  But it will happen.

Regards,
Bob Crothers

-----Original Message-----
From:   Chris Rehm [SMTP:Mr.AS400@ibm.net]
Sent:   Sunday, February 15, 1998 11:41 PM
To:     MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
Subject:        RE: Win95 - CA/400 session limit

** Reply to note from Bob Crothers <bcrothers@netdirect.net> 
Thu, 5 Feb 1998 07:50:37 -0500


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

If my AS/400 locked up when I ran too many copies of an 
application and
had to be powered off, I'd blame IBM.

It isn't as if 4 copies of CA is huge demand for resources.



Chris Rehm
Mr.AS400@ibm.net

How often can you afford to be unexpectedly out of business?
Get an AS/400.
root
+---
| 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 MIDRANGE-L-UNSU  
B@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: 
david@midrange.com
+---

+---
| 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 MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---