Re: 24x80 size issue

[Evan Harris <spanner@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Andy

taking into account the other responses, and not discounting the PTF issue, 
it seems that something required by the application was stored somewhere 
other than the *ALL USR save.

Since the vendor "hasn't seen this in a long time", this suggests they have 
some knowledge of what might be missing (I'm guessing that the client is 
specific to their application ?) as they have at least seen it before; 
therefore, hassle them to tell you how it was fixed last time ;)

You may want to consider whether there were some IFS directories that 
should have been transferred, and also check *PGM and *CMD objects in the 
non *ALLUSR libraries by comparing them with listings on the new system.

I wonder also whether you have a job description that needs some changes, 
or perhaps a comms (maybe mode) object. I'm thinking along the lines of 
system objects that are shipped but may have been modified on you original 
system but not the new one. This starts to get into the guts of what your 
vendor should be able to tell you (and makes a case for segregating 
application dependencies). You could be looking for a needle in a haystack 
if you vendor can't help you...

For what it's worth, I think you ought to be able to migrate between boxes 
without relying on a SAVSYS approach, but it does mean that you have to 
know where all the programs - and more importantly the system 
infrastructure those programs depend on - lives in order to be able to 
recreate it.

Regards
Evan Harris

> Had a model 600 - upgraded to a 170, all sysvals the same, OS/400 stayed
> at 5r1.
>
> I have some thin clients that worked fine pre-upgrade, but now, post
> upgrade, I get an error concerning the "clients" ability to show
> fields/data outside of the 24x80 workspace.  Extended display error. The
> third party vendor tells me they haven't seen this in  a LONG time (not
> since some VERY old terminals were in use) and that all newer terminals
> should be able to handle the way things are NOW.
>
> Our existing dumb terminals (3477FGs over twin-ax) handle everything
just
> fine, as do our CE sessions.  I'm stumped b/c the thin clients DID work
> just fine before the change in AS400s and I am too much of a novice to
be
> able to tell what is happening.  I have manually created devices to see
if
> that is the problem - no.  Autocreate - no.
>
>
> Secondly . . and I'm certain this is tied into the same issue, deals
with
> printing.  I setup a session on the thin clients for printing, manually
> create the printer (with model type, etc) and everything was working
> great.  We changed systems and now I get what looks like about four
lines
> of ascii column and row "headers" boxing in the correct printout.  The
> thin client setup did not change . .and I am stumped.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Anthony Hardy
> Director of MIS