Re: The Perpetual Myth of iSeries Obsolescence -- MIDRANGE-L

Jerry

Jerry Adams wrote:

Rob Dixon wrote:
What you seem to be saying is that if we all do it your way, then thedebate is dead.
It seems to me that you wish to crush us into submission. As your recordseems to be stuck, this is not a very effective way of influencing opinion.
It seems that most contributors to the thread have a particular point ofview and, like the oak tree, won't bend.

But most accept that there can be more than one viewpoint.

Trevor's a crusader (but, then, so was Don Quixote) and all crusaders,as well as the opposing Saracens, are very firm in their commitment.The whole thread reminds me of seminary students debating whetherthere's a hell or not. Removing the rhetoric, though, Trevor is right.

I think that he is saying that we must modernise rather than saying weshould improve. Any system, interface, etc., can always be improved.If we improve without using a mouse then I imagine that he would not behappy.

I got round the problem by enabling 5250 function keys using Javascriptin my browser window so users can choose how they operate - 5250 or GUI

I think that most of us, myself included, have looked at our existingpanels and assumed that putting a mouse or gui interface on top of themwould not improve things. Probably true. Soon after the thread began(who started this thread, anyway?!), I took a tour of our shop; mostlydata entry. Now, our order takers are fast! Sometimes the customerscalling in can't keep up. But with just a little imagination, I sawhalf a dozen (commonly used) programs that - if they were re-engineered,not just gui-ed - could be improved.

If the changes can be cost justified and you have the resources - fine.

It is time to move on.
It is indeed. The other point that, I think, Trevor has been trying tomake is that it is our careers on the line. Thirty-five years ago Iprogrammed for 96-column cards and such.

Forty years ago I was working on 80 column cards but I was involved inbuilding major on-line systems in the later 1960's

Then they brought in aterminal. Then a scanner. Etc. We've now got more tools available tous in the System i than any sane person could want; just imagine thepossibilities!
Seems like ifDVORAK didn't work, the keyboard is considered by the industry as anoutdated model anyway!! :-)
Here I must humbly disagree with Trevor's assessment. The DVORAKkeyboard failed to catch on simply because of the entrenched user set.Maybe that tells us something.

Rob Dixon