|
From: Joe Pluta <joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com> > From: Reeve Fritchman > It's simple: compared to 5250 applications, server applications > are grossly inefficient. In what way? In fact, a well written server program is far MORE efficient than a traditional monolithic green screen application. ===> I think you are overstating the point here. They are about the same when talking processing efficiency. The server approach is far MORE efficient when it comes to maintenance, but that is not the issue here. Let us assume for a moment that everybody went where 'IBM wants them to go' and converted everything to run client/server. That would remove the CFINT revenue and if as some (e.g. Jon Pais) have claimed that revenue is essential to the viability of the platform, then the platform will die when everybody is doing client/server. The only saving grace is that doing client/ server may require a lot more processing power forcing people to buy bigger boxes thus enhancing IBM's revenue to offset the CFINT tax, If as you say, server programs are far MORE efficient, people can get by with smaller boxes further eroding IBM's revenue and thus the viability of the platform. I think I may be missing something here, but I can't see what.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.