Re: MKS/PTC Implementer users only: Work with Objects - F16 switching between "native" and IFS objects behavior buggy? -- MIDRANGE-L

As far as needing new hardware I feel a teensy, tiny bit of empathy. The
smallest bit possible. This is why I submitted an Idea to IBM. Basically
IBM generally supports four levels of OS per Power hardware level. Four is
probably ok. But, instead of supporting current - 2 through rNext I think
they need to support current -1, through rNext +1. So instead of a P9
supporting 7.2-7.5, Power 10 supporting 7.3-7.6 and Power 11 supporting
7.4-rNext, the Power 11 should support 7.5 through rNext +1, or 7.5 - 7.8
(if the naming stays the same, I have no clue). As it is now, a software
vendor cannot get a P05 level of Power system that will support rNext. In
theory, the Power 10s will be obsolete in under 3 years when the beta
version of rNext would generally appear on the horizon. Some may argue
this, but IMNSHO a vendor should always be actively participating in IBM
Early Programs and be ready to support the latest release of IBM i on GA
date.
I also submitted another Idea that the first model to come out should
always include a P05 level machine. Granted, the prevailing wisdom is to
create big iron first for those customers busting at the seams. However,
if they cannot get a vendor to have software ready for the latest release
those same customers are stuck. Some may argue that vendors could use
cloud, etc. But there are vendors who are unlikely to ever post their
source code on a cloud machine.

All predictions are solely based off of the following and not on any
insider information: https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/687283 and
it's sister link https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/system-ibm-i-mapping

On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 1:34 PM Dan Bale via MIDRANGE-L <
midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rob,

Given that it took them 2 years to get 12.6 out the door and they had to
postpone the end of support for 12.5 due to 12.7 not being ready and 12.6
was released two years ago this month, I wouldn't hold my breath for i7.6
support. My guess is that won't happen until 12.7 comes out. Now that I
think about it, they may be constrained by older hardware that can't be
upgraded to 7.6.

When I left PTC 3 years ago, there was one IBMi developer left. The
had/have a GUI resource for Implementer Update and the RDi plugin, but the
IBMi developer is the sole keeper of the Implementer application knowledge
base. Add a manager who oversees multiple products and you can see that
Implementer is a cash cow for PTC, and that's the only reason why PTC still
keeps Implementer; they're certainly not investing anything in it. The
12.6 release notes are proof of that. My 2¢ and my opinion only:
Once/when/if the IBMi developer moves on, it's game over for Implementer.

Do other CMS vendors have conversion tools to migrate Implementer installs
to their product?

Dan Bale

-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Rob
Berendt
Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 9:12 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: MKS/PTC Implementer users only: Work with Objects - F16
switching between "native" and IFS objects behavior buggy?

I'm still waiting for them to support IBM i 7.6.
I switched from Turnover to them years ago because Turnover was dragging
their feet kicking and screaming when it came to upgrading to new versions
of the OS.
Perhaps it's time to do it again?

On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 2:48 PM Dan Bale via MIDRANGE-L <
midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

For those of you using Implementer and utilize IFS objects:
When using option 11. Work with Objects, do you find switching between
the default non-IFS objects and IFS objects is buggy?
Starting Work with Objects in "non-IFS" mode, you'll see your native
objects. Panel WRKOBJ.1 has the title "Work with Objects". Press
F16=Show IFS Obj, and you'll be taken to panel WRKOBJ.1I "Work with IFS

Objects"

showing the native objects.

PTC support has article CS180868 which identifies the issue, but the
resolution is "Reported to R&D as RFC 145092/SPR 5345150". It applies
to Implementer v11.0 forward, so they've known about this for a LONG
time (10+ years?). We're seeing it on v12.5 and v12.6. I created a

case, and the

response was " Thank you for notifying us. We have an SPR logged for

this

issue and have attached you to it. You will be notified when this is
addressed." Which is the Implementer support team's polite way of
saying "It sucks to be you."

(BTW, does anyone know whether Dawn B. is out at PTC? For the past
few months, I've been getting responses from Brian Anderson,
"Technical Support
Manager".)

- Dan Bale

*** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this
communication may be confidential, and is intended only for the use of the
recipients named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please return
it to the sender immediately and delete the original message and any copy
of it from your computer system. If you have any questions concerning this
message, please contact the sender. ***
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
questions.