Prev: move of COMP to DISPLAY
Next: <IBM> Mainframe and "UI's" (GUI or not)
From: Clark F Morris on 5 Jan 2008 20:54
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:22:26 -0600, Scott <NoSpam(a)Spamblocker.org>
wrote:

>Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in
>news:ietun3hsk4uiug3ilj27mcr0ll7t3k8p0t(a)4ax.com:
>
>> It's about allowing a student to connect his laptop computer to the
>> Web, log on, and sign up for a class. It's about allowing a salesman
>> to connect his laptop computer to the Web, enter his sales and pull up
>> some graphs.
>>
>> The functionality is more than just the pretty face.
>
>
>It is about a pretty face WITH functionality and you cannot have
>a pretty face on the mainframe. Companies always want the pretty screens
>and the mainframe loses because of it, in spite of its clear advantage in
>almost every other area.
>
>I'm sorry to say but as a Systems Analyst, over and over again, users
>and management are always more interested in how an application LOOKS
>than in how it WORKS. Of course if it doesn't work right there is a big
>problem. But the point is, in every phase of an application life cycle,
>to the people outside of I.T. who hold the purse strings, LOOKING good
>is always their first priority. And to THEM, looking good MEANS
>functionality. That's what screws the mainframe.
>
>It may have cost IBM a pretty penny years ago to make graphic screens
>but what is it costing them now? Short-sighted corporate mentality
>loses the business again.
Since the IBM mainframe can do web serving under both Linux and z/OS
is this as big a reason anymore?
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: move of COMP to DISPLAY
Next: <IBM> Mainframe and "UI's" (GUI or not)