Re: IBM i New Navigator!!

["Larry \"DrFranken\" Bolhuis" <midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Responding to two in one here.

You are correct Steve that there is stuff not in the new yet and that 
has nearly always been the case. If you recall the initial version of 
'Client Access' it did little at first.
	- BUT -
IBM is NOT making you pick one OR the other. BOTH will be there for 
'some time' so you WILL have the old one available for the cases where a 
function hasn't yet migrated.  I DO believe the functions needed by the 
majority of users IS there already and it would be admins with the 
skills to go back to the old one when needed.

For Jim, those customers you describe solve their own problem!! *IF* 
they don't upgrade to the latest groups straightaway then they don't 
need to worry about any default change because they won't have it.  If 
they upgrade ACS but haven't upgraded IBM i they'll still get the old as 
ACS is smart enough to look before it leaps.

When they DO upgrade they'll get the new interface at the then current 
feature level.

There are multiple issues leaving the default at the old version:
	#1 of course is that it will be better hidden than being on the second 
page of a google search.
	#2 is the perception by the users that Navigator for i is still slow 
and ugly and also slow, and rather ugly as well. It also punishes the 
CPU each time it starts, primarily ADMIN2 where that thing lives.
	#3 Until IBM changes the default 99 and 44/100ths % of all IBM i shops 
will live with the old interface until it is gone. And then they will 
cry "HOW LONG HAS THIS EXISTED?" and "WHY DIDN'T I GET IT THEN!?"

	- L

On 9/15/2021 12:34 PM, Steve Pavlichek wrote:
> It also makes sense since there is functionality in the old navigator which is not in the new.
>
>
> From: Jim Oberholtzer<mailto:midrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 12:27 PM
> To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion<mailto:midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: IBM i New Navigator!!
>
> My initial reaction was the same as Larry's, why have a separate URL for
> the new Navigator, but since then I've come to the conclusion that IBM was
> correct to keep them separate for a time, therefore I do not support this
> RFE.
>
> Here's why:
> Most of my customers have mixed setups where some are older PTF groups,
> usually 6 to 9 months after availability, they prefer to let others take
> the early adoption road (thanks Rob!).  They also have users who don't take
> much to change, particularly as large of a change as this is going to be.
> Trying to get users to utilize ACS to its fullest (and keep that even
> within reason of current) much less leave behind the beloved iSeries
> Navigator is a substantial job for many.
>
> I surveyed many of my customers and their take is "good, leave it that
> way"  The feeling is the more progressive users can utilize it and the more
> traditional (read: resistant to any changes) will use what they may have
> finally started using a very short time ago.  We might introduce the newest
> version to those stuck on iSeries Navigator to see if we can dislodge that
> out of their hands, who knows, might work.
>
> But for now, let's see how this all plays out.  I'd prefer a setting
> somewhere where I could turn the new environment on/off at port 2001 as
> desired.
>
>
>
>
> Jim Oberholtzer
> Chief Technical Architect
> Agile Technology Architects