Re: CFINT: I understand it now...

I don't agree with this chain of thought. In fact, server applications when 
well designed,
are very efficient. Interactive programs can be very efficient, but in an 
AS/400 environment,
they are nowhere near as efficient as say, CICS applications. (Even given that 
AS/400
interactive applications are probably more efficient that anything else out 
there except for
old Wang VS programs.... ;)

I was talking to someone yesterday who mentioned this debate going on, and 
after reading the
past 400 or so messages on the subject, I think we are all missing some crucial 
point of logic.
I *think* it may be that the people in Rochester are slowing being replaced by 
people from
mainframe backgrounds, who just have a really different train of thought than 
pure midrange
people. Batch processing is a different animal entirely on a mainframe than an 
interactive
application. In fact, programs like TSO and CICS  on a mainframe are a single 
'batch'
application that just happens to provide interactive services.

The CFINT thing, well, it sort of makes sense from a mainframe point of view - 
and there is
no doubt at all that IBM is in a STRONG push to unify their product line.


-Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leif Svalgaard" <leif@leif.org>
To: <midrange-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: CFINT: I understand it now...


> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>
>