Booth, In a message dated 10/27/99 4:53:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes: > I wonder how we can make the green screen applications intuitive, easy to > use, pleasing to look at, and easily supported? Short answer - code them that way. Straight 5250 is ugly, so we cannot address your "pleasing to look at" request. However, we _CAN_ add intuituion, ease of use and "easy" support. As most know, I _HATE_ the fact that IBM carried 5250 over to the AS/400 for reasons other than to support clients with large investments in it. The advent of the AS/400 _SHOULD_ have been a great time to introduce a new protocol had IBM's terminal group not still been looking for a way to make a buck off of 20 year old 5250 and 3270 technology at the time. Newer (than 1993) DDS keywords make it far easier to determine cursor position and the like, so take advantage of them! If only 5250 worked like PC's when it came to the use of cursor positioning keys like <TAB> and <BACKTAB>... > The idea of an HTML and 5250 combining into a snazzy interface makes a lot > of sense but man, it needs a lot of additional function to be accepted. Indeed. > What does the AS/400 solution offer that NT doesn't? We know that > reliability is a non-issue - too many NT servers are running way to well > and way to long for us to throw up the reliability smoke screen anymore, > and the AS/400 itself is way to complicated for most shops today. Not really. In order to have the ultra-reliable NT servers mentioned earlier, you have to have ultra-GOOD NT administrators -- often at ultra-good prices. NT is _STILL_ not as scalable as its' network competition. One of my current clients is a case in point. They run NT server and NT Workstation on the desktop (I've often said that NT Workstation is more reliable than '95 or '98). The network is _very_ reliable BUT, very slow for the number of users on it. My last two clients contrast that by using Novell as their WAN, which crashed at least once a week -- but they were running FOUR TIMES THE VOLUME, users in the thousands instead of the hundreds. What would have happened had management at the Novell clients not accepted the frequent crashing as "the norm" and instead canned some people until the network quit crashing? Problem is, Micro$oft has convinced people that crashing is normal and that reloading the OS from scratch is an acceptable diagnostic tool. The difference between the AS/400 and any LAN/WAN is that any idiot can run an AS/400. With an idiot running it, the AS/400 might not be as fast as it could be, but it will still run without going down unless there is a hardware problem. With an idiot running NT, Novell, Banyan, etc., uptime is a question mark. > So, what is there to offer? Talk to your users, and ask them what they want. The _REAL_ users, not the one that's in charge of them and never touches a terminal. I've seen "visual" work well when the application was developed in concert with the users (using touch screens), but I've more often seen it fail because it implemented what "management" wanted to see. GUI is good, but GUI for GUI's sake is destined for failure... JMHO, Dean Asmussen Enterprise Systems Consulting, Inc. Fuquay-Varina, NC USA E-mail: DAsmussen@aol.com "The only stupid question is the one you were too proud to ask." -- Me +--- | This is the Midrange System Mailing List! | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com. | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com. | To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com. | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: email@example.com +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.