|
I use tn5250, it is a improved telnet. Vernon Hamberg wrote:
I'd say Client Access has a LOT more overhead - telnet is pretty bare-bones. Maybe some of the other emulators are leaner, meaner. PC Support and its successors that became iSeries Access have always been 'way over-engineered - that's why Rumba, et al., had a market.But does anyone like using the telnet key mapping? It's doable but kind of a tough one to remember, IMO. I use it in emergencies. Besides, you often can't see the underlines that make up entry fields. I'm talking telnet from a PC - are you talking the same thing? Or are you talking telnet from another 400 session?Vern At 10:24 AM 7/21/2005, you wrote:We noticed recently (visually) that the interactive response time is decidedly slower on Client Access sessions vs. Telnet sessions, in cases using the same IP adderess. I am trying to find an explanantion for this or how to correct.Thank you, Phil
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.
midrange.com
