Re: Native GUI (was Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than Switch)

[David Gibbs <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Pete Helgren wrote:
> Web  applications are still a fat client application, in my view. 
> Take a look at the size of the *client* to have to download to run a 
> web application (IE,Firefox, Safari, you name it).

Um, I don't think so.  A web browser is no more a fat client than a 5250
emulator is.  It has no specific awareness of the application it's
running.  It doesn't have to be updated EVERY TIME a logic change is
introduced.  And, it can run a huge number of wildly differing
applications without any change to it's core code.

A fat client (also known as a thick client or rich client) is a client
that performs the bulk of any data processing operations itself, but
does not necessarily rely on the server.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client_(computing)#Fat_clients

> Most of us run (still) a fat client called a 5250 emulator and think 
> nothing of it.  It is just the client that is needed to run that 
> particular application.

I guess you should define 'fat'.  CA/400 is 'fat' because it provides a
significant amount of functionality besides just 5250 emulation.  To run
applications on the System i I can run a client that is 75k (telnet.exe
on WinXP SP2).  That's not fat (imo).

> IBM could develop and deploy their own fat client application to run
> GUI's, no different than needing a "fat" 5250 emulator.

Like iSeries Navigator?

david