Andy,

The 250-#2296 will provide approximately the same interactive CPW as the
400-#2131, with addition batch.  The downside of this choice is that
you're committing them to staying 'very traditional' and leaving them
without an upgrade path.  I would suggest having a vendor price out a
low-end 270 and a 250 with equivalent capacities, then compare the
prices against the need for an upgrade path.  Some of the 270's will
come with a base interactive capacity which will be the same as what
they currently have, others will require an interactive capacity
feature.

If they would prefer the used market, there should be a number of 170's
there which would equal their current platform.

What is 'ideal' would depend on whether they will see growth in their
processing requirements and if they might stop being so 'traditional'.

Are they replacing their system because they need more capacity?

Regards,
Andy Nolen-Parkhouse



> Hi all
>
> I have a client who is about to replace his Model 400 #2131 running
V4.3
>
> He has a very traditional setup, approx 15 green screen (twinax dumb
> terminal) users, with 4 5250 Client Access users.
>
> To show how a traditional setup it was, prior to this machine in 1998
they
> were running a B20 on Version 2.1!
>
> Anybody have any ideas on an ideal replacement?
>
> Regards
> Andy Youens



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 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.