Re: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than Switch -- MIDRANGE-L

Trevor,

For the record, from a practical, business data entry standpoint, Idon't think that a GUI has a major advantage over green screen (theexception being navigation.) In fact, it may be a hindrance. But,when it comes to identifying a screen / panel as being modern of old,a half decent GUI will look and fell more comfortable to the averageuser and manager and person in a software purchasing position.

Enhancing an application is a lot different than making it acrucial part of your application. If I require a third party GUIapplication to market together with my software, then it's usually anon-starter. It might be OK as an optional component.

BUT, and here's the key, you can throw as many 3rd party GUIvendors as you out there into the mix, but the system won't be knownin the marketplace as having a native GUI.

As far as the name is concerned, if IBM was truly pushing the brandname - AND added the modern, very visible components, then I thinkthat it would make a difference. Anything else and it doesn't makemuch difference.



 -mark

At 12/11/06 12:51 AM, you wrote:

Mark,

GUI is simply a face to an application. Sure, we need to separate the
presentation layer from the application layer - this is how you modernize
your applications. You can do that with native i5/OS tools, or you can
choose a better third party tool to enhance the base OS functions. We
already do this with security, scheduling, HA... why not UI?

The name has nothing to do with modernization. I did not, and will not
connect GUI and the name. The System i has to be modern in this new IT
century on its own right. The name is the brand. You say brand recognition
is needed, yet you do not recognize the brand.

Trevor

----- Original Message -----
From: "M. Lazarus" <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx>
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than Switch


> Trevor,
>
>  I agree that the breadth of 3rd party applications is what makes it
> an excellent business platform.  But NOT for OS level items.  That
> would weaken the platform.  Integrated security, database, I/O
> subsystems, communication subsystems, etc. are the things that make
> it strong because they are supplied by IBM.
>
>  I believe that the UI services and print output services should be
> supplied by IBM if they want to maintain the stability that the
> machine is known for.  Also, if 3rd party solutions are required for
> these basic items, then they won't be ubiquitous and the programs
> will still have a "dated" look to them.  If we can't easily (with  no
> additional add-ons or special hardware) print graphical output, then
> most reports will also look old style.  A new name will in NO WAY
> convince a customer otherwise.
>
>  -mark