Re: The Perpetual Myth of iSeries Obsolescence

[Rob Dixon <rob.dixon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jerry

Jerry Adams wrote:
> Rob Dixon wrote:
>
>   
> > What you seem to be saying is that if we all do it your way, then the 
> > debate is dead.
> >
> > It seems to me that you wish to crush us into submission. As your record 
> > seems 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 of 
> view 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 whether 
> there'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 we 
should improve.  Any system, interface, etc., can always be improved.  
If we improve without using a mouse then I imagine that he would not be 
happy.

I got round the problem by enabling 5250 function keys using Javascript 
in 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 existing 
> panels and assumed that putting a mouse or gui interface on top of them 
> would not improve things.  Probably true.  Soon after the thread began 
> (who started this thread, anyway?!), I took a tour of our shop; mostly 
> data entry.  Now, our order takers are fast!  Sometimes the customers 
> calling in can't keep up.  But with just a little imagination, I saw 
> half 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 to 
> make is that it is our careers on the line. Thirty-five years ago I 
> programmed for 96-column cards and such.  
Forty years ago I was working on 80 column cards but I was involved in 
building major on-line systems in the later 1960's
> Then they brought in a 
> terminal.  Then a scanner.  Etc.  We've now got more tools available to 
> us in the System i than any sane person could want; just imagine the 
> possibilities!
>
>   
> > >  
> > >
> > > Seems like if 
> > > DVORAK didn't work, the keyboard is considered by the industry as an 
> > > outdated model anyway!! :-)
> > >
> > >    
> > >
> > >       
> Here I must humbly disagree with Trevor's assessment.  The DVORAK 
> keyboard failed to catch on simply because of the entrenched user set.  
> Maybe that tells us something.
>   
Rob Dixon

>