Re: Green-screen versus browser

On 4/24/05, Reeve <rfritchman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm writing a management paper for a customer (in support of the
> iSeries but trashing the WebSphere "solution" and the lack of native
> browser support) and working on a concise description of the
> green-screen vs. browser question.  The context is to explain why the
> iSeries, in spite of all its greatness (performance, low TCO,
> reliability), isn't known to and/or accepted by a large portion of the
> IT community.  One factor is IBM's previous marketing failures (no
> other word for it, sorry; well, maybe "absence"); another reason is
> the preponderance of the green-screen UI, my current topic.
> 
> Here's what I have so far:
> 
> "The problem with green-screen is that the programmer is limited to a
> fixed font size, a limited color palette, essentially no support for
> graphics, only 132 columns (across), only 27 lines (down), and the
> requirement to use a non-standard, usually non-free terminal emulation
> program (Client Access, etc.), which means you can't talk directly to
> many new communications devices like PDA's.

telnet is just as standard as the browser.  and why would management
care about the small cost a of Client Access equipped device when they
are paying 10s of thousands of $$ for the employee using the device? 
The advantage the browser has over green screen is that it is just a
lot better ... in all categories.

> "There is nothing innately good about browsers; except for Firefox,
> they're bloated with generally useless features, each has its own
> unique characteristics (meaning it doesn't work exactly the same as
> other browsers), and many continue to be a gateway ("Gates way"?) for
> viruses and spyware.

Reeve, if you write this to management, they are likely to see you as
an as400 luddite more concerned with grinding his "MS sucks" axe
instead of solving business problems. IMO, of course :)

> 
> "The benefit of browsers is that the programmer has much greater
> control over what the user sees and how the screen works...but it
> takes a lot more programming effort to deliver a browser-based
> application.  The basic tradeoff is balancing time-to-deliver (low for
> green-screen, high for browser), function (low for green screen, high
> for browser), and performance (relatively high for green-screen,
> relatively low for browser).

Only on the as400 is this true.  In windows a competent programmer can
deliver asp.net, browser based functionality in a fraction of the time
it takes to write a desktop application.

> Am I missing any points meaningful to senior management?

tell them, if they want to leverage the value of their as400
applications and database, that they should move as quickly as
possible to a setting where asp.net and windows forms are the front
end to the business objects and whatever on a state of the art iSeries
server.

good luck!

-Steve

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