Am 31.12.2019 um 16:04 schrieb Raul Jager <raul@xxxxxxxxxx>:
Yes I am really interested about why you are opposed.See my other post to Martin Booth (?). There are some explanations on that topic I don't want to repeat here.
My main objective is to serve better to my users, IBM i has a better cost of ownership,That TCO thing is highly dependent on how people calculate. I suspect that calculations will be different depending on who sells and everybody is like "We have the smaller TCO!".
but 5250 gives a sense of antic, and sometimes people go to other platforms that looks more "modern".Depends on the people, I think.
Local PC cpu cost the same rendering a nice web page or using a 5250 emulator.No, it certainly it is not. Pixelating fonts into a window is less CPU intensive than additionally drawing eye candy with fancy JPG graphics to decompress (and transfer over the wire also). Depending on user speed, the whole HTML stuff can appear slow compared to plain text. Even native Windows applications with .NET or whatnot can be considerably slower.
However, users aiming from field to field with the mouse will barely notice.
Hmm. Comparing the situation into the Linux sysadmin area, it appears that power users prefer text interfaces while rookies need their control panel to change system settings.
Web is available in every deviceYes, that's true.
emulator you need to install.I don't see a problem with that.
It is hard in telephones.Web without special care about tiny screens is also hard in telephones.
I think I get what you mean. Mobile devices are definitely a thing nowadays. I'm just not sure if they are a thing where IBM i is usually processing data.
PGP-Key: DDD3 4ABF 6413 38DE - https://www.pocnet.net/poc-key.asc
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.