System iNetwork

Chris,
I remember the announcment day very well. But I can't help thinking it should be 29 years for the System/38 where this wonderful architecture started.

Thank you,
Fred

[*Note from Chris: Laughs! Great point, Fred!]

Congratulations on twenty awesome years!!

Anne Lucas

Judas H Preist does this make me feel old!!

Having had one of the first System 38's and then an early AS/400, it has been heart warming to know that what I did way back then still can function today even with all the upgrades and changes that have been made.

My only regret is that GUI did not come to the system in time for many folks who moved off the system to another system, not because they wanted to but because their customer base wanted GUI and either it was not available or was pretty complicated getting there.

I have enjoyed my 38 years of continuous work with IBM systesm (Sys320, SysIII-15D, System 38, AS/400) and appreciate the work they have put in to make the system what it is today.

Happy Birthday to my favorite system. A rose by any other name...

Let's not forget that the AS/400, when it was first introduced, was not all that much more than a grown-up S/38 and a name change.. So we've been at this for a good bit longer than 20 years...

You failed to mention the actual origin of the AS/400, which was the System/38. The System/38, had the first operating system, from which OS/400 originated.

Thanks!

Cliff Takamori

Only 20 years? Well, I consider the System/38 the original machine, not the AS/400. S/38 was announced in 1978 so that makes it the 30-year anniversary of the operating system anyway.

Sure we've gone from CPF to OS/400, to i5/OS to "i" but its still really just CPF.

I remember my boss back in 1978 saying "maybe we'll order 3 of them" referring to the System/38 models originally announced. Of course, they didn't appear for another 2 or 3 years in customer shops. But when they did, I made the decision to move to a System/38 shop because "it was the future". The System/34 shop I was working in, while appreciating the new box, had tired of waiting and moved on to 4341 with S/34.

It was only a year or so after using S/38 that I decided it was the right choice--I had to wait for the updated version of SDA, the original version took something like 20 minutes to load, and the original SEU was just a hack of DFU, it wasn't until "SEU II" that we ended up with what most people still use to this day, sad but true.

That was about the time I started "Q38 -- The Newsletter..." about 2 months later a guy named David Duke started up News/34. Dave and I talked several times about merging the two publications, but never got beyond polite phone calls. Of course today, Dave's buying his own private island somewhere and I'm still writing articles.

I have my original $31,000 AS/400 model B10 sitting in my garage. Up until some 10 years ago, my original System/38 was running in the office. But it's long-gone now.

This platform, like the Apple Mac, has a dedicated and good group of customers. The only real difference is that in the last 5 years I've spent more on Apple Mac hardware than on System i hardware. Why? Because Apple knows how to market and sell hardware. Sure they charge more, but they also don't try to retire on each and every box they sell. They know you're going to have CPU envy in 2, 3 or maybe 4 years and buy an new/replacement machine. Now that's how you sell hardware.

Woo-Hoo! I remember the first System/38 at the IBM data-center on Wilshire Boulevard, LA, CA in 1979! I was so excited because I saw the future and it was me!

Yes, I continued to program until the late 80's on System 34's and 36's but the rise of, at first, a computer with a cult-following to the AS/400 was truly a breath-taking experience for me. Oh, and I made a lot of money off my software packages. Thank you IBM.

The single-level storage, the "Everything is object" and the PC have triggered a tidal wave of change in IT that is still going on, even now. IBM you have really done it!

So congratulations, IBM, and long life to all your products and intellectual property.

-John

Mr. Ian Jarman said:

"The original AS/400 B10 had a CPW rating of 3. If we look at the 595, it has a CPW rating of 300,000. So it's 100,000 times more powerful than the original AS/400, which is quite an incredible growth in terms of technology," Jarman noted.

What Mr. Jarman did not say (and I am sincerely sad about saying) is that in 1988 the System/38 (AS/400) had perhaps 80 percent of the marketplace on a computer 100,000 times slower than today, when now the Power i (System i, AS/400) has perhaps 25 percent of the marketplace is fading fast.

IBM apparently is still searching (in the wrong places) for the reasons as it has been unsuccessful for the past 20 years, and it cannot comprehend that it is the lack of a native GUI, strategically developed and supported integrated applications (like SAP), and a fundamental recreation (or is it a reincarnation) of the operating system and programming languages to implement full electronic program auditing that are the reasons.

Sad, so very sad. and so unnecessary and inexcusable.

Best Regards,

Paul H. Harkins

What a Journey.....This was the begining in India for outsourcing work on AS400 systems. I am extremly proud to be the part.

Congratulations!!!!

Happy Birthday to IBM i.

Like a superstar, the system changes name a few times in the last 20 years :-)

I started working on AS/400 around July 1988 in Singapore. That was probably one of the first sites in the world to use AS/400. After one year, I went on to pursue my Ph.D. degree and my academic career. After a break of about 15 years, I have the fortune to be associated with IBM i again.

When a kid reaches 20, it is the prime of his/her life -- full of energy, full of ideas, full of aspiration, and full of hope. The future is bright and nothing is impossible.

All the best to IBM i for the next 20 years!!

Yes, you failed to mentioned the IBM System/38 was the predicessor of the AS/400 line.

The Business Partners of IBM and US Software development should combine their skills and produce a better product than SAP. That way it is an American product made in the USA!!
That would be a very good thing for this country and good for all!!!

Toasting to another 20 years!!
--
Best Regards,

Robert Rieck
Weber Technologies, Inc.
Office: (847) 838-3743
Cell: (630) 421-0316
Fax: (847) 838-3745

Email: Robertrieck_weber@comcast.net
Webertechnologies@comcast.net
URL: WWW.webertechnologies.net

I also think it should start from S/38. I have so much memories with its CPF~~~ and MCH~~~ messages.

Most of people still call the system as AS/400 in Korea.

Congratulations!

I remember when the AS/400 was called Silverlake! I also remember when IBM first announced the AS/400 would have 1GB (!!!) of DASD. Who could ever use so much DASD?!

A long and very happy ride, this System/38, with all the other names it has had. Finally mainstreamed i this year, we can hope. I recall first seeing the System/38 at IBM in Bedford NH. We went there to look at S/34 but Charlie (our IBM-SE) took me in back and said "wait til you see this!". I was hooked and still am. We eventually bought 4 of them and installed at various plant locations. Today we run even more locations on one system in LPARs. Ain't life grand. Long live the System/38, AS/400 and offspring!

I'm sorry, but as a veteran going all the way back to the System/3 world, I disagree that the AS/400 was just an extension of the System/38, it was an evolution into a new class of machine. While OS/400's underpinnings may be CPF, the folding of the S/36 environment into the platform in my opinion really meant the platform was more than just an S/38 in a rack. That, plus the fact that the AS/400 was a much better engineered and reliable platform than its predecessors gives me the time line (S/3 to S/38 to AS/400 = Homo erectus to homo habilis to homo sapiens).

I think the reason they're saying its 20 years old, is because many of the now "top dogs" in Rochester where underlings to Glen Henry, Dick Baines, Ron Fess and many others who actually were "the father of CPF" (read "OS/400" "i5/os"). They built the System/38 from nothing. The AS/400 was simply (well not simply) a System/38 that could run System/34 OCL and RPGII code.

The hardware on the other hand, was a big, huge innovation with AS/400. 300 Megabit channel attach, small footprint, auto-config of devices (something I recommended they do). The hardware caught up to the operating system.

Today, it's almost all moot with skill sets moving to other operating systems. Nobody seems to care (except i5/OS programmers) what platform the run something on, as long as it's Windows.

I think we are WAY too focused on S/38 and AS/400, which is part of the image problem we perceive today. The current Power System is just the latest evolution of hardware and software that began with the S/360. CPF, CL and integrated relational database came with S/38, but parameter driven OCL which became CL, SEU, DFU and the wonderful "Help" key came with S/32. 5250, SDA and early PDM (then called POP) and the idea of user friendly menus rather than hard to understand CL programs for menus came with S/34. RPG and cardless computing came with S/3. Client Access began as PC Support with S/34. Yes, the lack of "native" GUI hurts (we're actually probably lucky that IBM didn't build the GUI for the AS/400 using OS/2), but System i had sophisticated partitioning technology at a price point the masses could absorb long before other platforms.

The point is that IBM has continued to roll more and more function into Rochester midrange products for over 40 years and will continue to do that. We fixate on the machine that we happen to have memories of and declare it to be the well spring rather than focusing on the beauty and simplicity of the technology IBM has brought to the SMB market at prices far below what enterprise customers paid even 5-10 years ago.

Mourn for the "old days" if you want, but I am still excited about what the future will bring to SMB in the way of Power Systems. I'd still love to see IBM and Microsoft provide "native" Windows on Power processors so Microsoft could finally find a platform that would scale without massive complexity. The future is what you make it. The past is in your dreams.....

Thank you Paul H. Harkins, for pointing out the dark side of the AS/400's success. The great accomplishments are the ease of use, Object-Oriented basis, Relational Data-Base, the tremendous power (for the 80's) of the System/38 and the AS/400 up to the models D and E as a development platform. The dark side is that after creating the PC-Explosion and contributing to the Internet, IBM lost control because of its conservatism.

IBM has been clueless about the enormous importance of the GUI for development in the IT-World. Green is dead and the AS/400 is still mostly green.

IBM's second blunder was to not keep the IDE up-to-date with the flow of the industry. With Visual Studio the focused center of system-development in the Windows world, upgrades to Visual Studio are intensely waited for and debated. IBM starved WDSc just as it starved the System/38.

Reporting services are central to the development of Business Intelligence. My employer, Pinal County Government, carefully debated its acquisition of COGNOS back in 2003. We also have Crystal reports, now owned by SAP. Microsoft has mature components of its SQL-Server Suite in Analysis Services (Cubes) and Reporting Services. IBM? Well, uh, not too long ago IBM announced its own reporting services for DB/2 years after competitors had already staked out their reporting territories. Hello IBM!?

I have fond memories of the early S/38! By the mid 1990's, the AS/400 had lost a lot of ground to other solutions. The Windows world just like SAP have closely integrated tools for the Developer just as the System/38 and early AS/400 did.

IBM has fallen victim to greed and the "don't rock the boat" so no resources were dedicated to the GUI, for example. "The GUI is just 'Eye-candy'", is what I heard.

I want IBM to recreate itself, I want IBM to redefine its product development process so they can rise to a new paradigm.

In Aug of '88 we received one of the first SilverLake systems that came off the line in our remote office. Since then, the system grew like wildfire. Working on them has been a pleasure and an experience to say the least. I've seen this system soaked in water, fall off trucks, sit in 130 warehouses and still come out and up clean as a baby's bottom. Regardless of what anyone says, you can't beat this system. Thanks for the good times.

I'm just glad to say I have been on the system 38 and AS400 for 24 years. The system has been great for my career!!! I just it can carry me another 20 and get me retired !!!!

RPGILE LIVE FOREVER !!!

Can anybody say "Future System project"?
30+ years later, those developers look liked they lived up to the project's original name if not intent.

Despite the trumpetting of Blades and IBM i 6.1 , which are besides cool names probably also very innovative products, I don't see in the field not any single sign to yet speak of "the" return of the as/400 eco system. On the contrary, in the Western European, more specifically Benelux area, the exodus of customers leaving the i platform is gaining pace. No wonder that Common Belgium is trying to expand it's members base to all of IBM midrange platforms, hoping to embrace the Linux/AIX group. The reason for this is, as they state, we're all on one hardware box now, the real reason obviously is one of survival.

correct! future system is 30 years old.

I signed first S38 in Italy (Milan branch of Chase Manhattan Bank, an early proposal) in september 1978.

In 1998 we did not celebrate a birthday, it was funeral of S36

I started on the S/38 in January of 1980. I would never have thought that business computing would be so wonderful. I was EE trained and snooty about such a thing to do for a living. The AS/400 line (renamed until we can't figure out what to call it) completely changed my perspective.

I lived across the street from work and came over in the middle of the night and read the manuals.

I also remember the S/38 at IBM on Wilshire, and I am still grateful for the help received. Prior to taking classes there I had to create Independent study classes through the University to get going on this machine.

It saddens me also that IBM does not seem to understand that this box needs to have a solution for GUI that could really rock your world and simple to use. We can get some of this today, but as the solutions differ so much from shop to shop you can never really get the extra leap that comes with the pro being able to tinker from shop to shop and really get things going.

This reminds me of the report layout generator solution RLU. After such a clean and nice solution as SDA had been early on, I had always thought that this would have been adressed in a similar manner. Finally RLU died a sad little death.

For those of us who have given our time and care to this system (and it really deserves it) we all share the fear that it will become the boat anchor in the corner that nobody cares about, where data is stored because it never goes down. This has the inevitable result of losing the loyalty of those of us that have learned to love this system and eventually leaves it open to being replaced as an architechture.

A proper solution is so important because it deserves more than a death by neglect.

I disagree with those who say it's been around too long. The original S/38 was a good idea, but the ability to grow and mature through time is what makes this a durable architecture, even if the names can't seem to survive for long.

Happy 28 and a half! It's not quite 29 for a couple months.

Marilyn Eisinger
Verite Solutions Services
(562)400-9595

The system 38, do I remember the this sysyem, I had the 1st one in the San Fernando Valley in Calif. At San Fernando electric, Oct. 1980 install. The IBM Tech. Mark Segal and I used to stay working on the system till midnight. Those were great days. Having worked on the Sys III for 6 years and doing CCP, the move was awesome, developing interactive programs was like 1/3 time.

Thank you IBM.

First a Big Happy Birthday to iSeries & the team at Rochester. Unlike some of my other friends here, I would say I am a relatively newcomer to AS/400 -- have been working on it for the last 10 years. Journey & learning process has been great on such an amazing system.

Thank you, IBM.

So we're back to the "native GUI" argument again, eh? Yea that's the only reason things are the way they are.

Leave it to this group to take a nice anniversary deal and flip it into yet another diatribe about how bad off we are.

It has nothing to do with a dedicated but nonetheless stuck in the past group of people who can't see the forest for the trees.

How many Linux/UNIX admins do you know that use only a GUI to access their systems? LOL Howabout mainframes?

Seriously the GUI thing is such a lame argument with so many options out there to code to a browser. Tell me, with a native OS GUI, how would you present that to the user, since that's what ultimately matters? An admin who requires there be a GUI on the system itself isn't much of an admin.

Just like a telecom buddy of mine says: "If you can't fix it with a buttset and some beanies you ain't a technician."

My difficulty with GUI is not so much the browser interface but finding a browser based word processor that I can integrate into iSeries applications, taking variables into the text.

I get told to use Lotus Symphony, it's free, but how do I make the connection (ODBC?) and how do I control saves, editing etc.?

Oh - and print on IBM printers

Hello Lerxst,

I agree with you, that it doesn't make a lot of sense anymore to keep an rambling about the missing native GUI.

Nowadays the UI clearly has to be browser based.

But remember, 10-15 years ago things looked different. No real browser apps. available yet, so probably even a relatively primitive looking GUI (likes SAP's ?), would have made a big difference then.

The curious situation now is, that the only people that have a native GUI (iSeries Nav.) are the ones that hardly need it (the admins)...

Anyway happy anniversary AS/400 (S/3x, iSeries, System i, ...)

I don't think GUI is the issue anymore. I used to feel that way, but not in 2008.

Today, I think the real problem is that IBM is making a long-lived system, one that lives a long time, in a world of 2-year hardware cycles.

People don't want to buy Power system or System i or whatever its called, because it costs them too much to install it. Sure they end up paying the same for Intel solutions over a 5 or 10 year lifecycle, but when was the last time a Western (in the geo-political sense) company thought about things with a 10-year perspective? Maybe 10 days, or even 10 months, but nobody in the U.S. Corporate world cares about 10 years from now. So no one will ever cause Power systems sales to increase except for one thing, PRICE CUTS by 70%. And IBM ain't gonna do that, because they too are thinking about the next Quarter's profits.

Time to find a new interest.

I started on the System/38 back in '85. At first I wasn't too happy with the prospect because up until then I wasn't all that impressed with IBM operating systems. After working on the Dick Pick O/S, TOPS-20, and Unix, the 370 just seemed to me to be mediocre at best.

The more I learned of CPF the more impressed I became with both IBM and the System/38. Of course nothing is perfect as there were things about the System/38 that didn't wow me (like RPG), but with every new release more and more of my initial misgivings have been assuaged.

As to AS/400's current problems, if superior design and engineering was all that was necessary to succeed in the marketplace then EMCC would have beat out IBM in the 50's and today we would probably be programming on some kind of Univac derivative. The factors that lead to success are so complex as to be unfathomable even years after the moment was over.

Ian: You've got an interesting situation there. I can't say that I have an answer either, and just off the cuff I suspect those recommending Symphony might not fully understand what you're trying to get to.

Hope you find a workable solution.

Richard: Thank you and happy anniversary to you as well! I think yes that 10-15 years ago things were indeed different and the argument had some legs. No more today as the solution is there, sans perhaps what Ian describes.

Bob: You are absolutely dead on with your comments. What has made the system great is also a crutch for it in some/many ways.

Business has changed how they buy and perhaps (for sure) the i model doesn't fit that anymore.

As for that new interest...where do I start. There are so many!

In discussing GUI, we also need to take into account this tricky concept called perception. Sales people are typically better dressed than programmers because they need to meet the clients and they need to present a professional, non-sloppy, and non-legacy image. We have to dress up for job interviews. It is a human weakness that we tend to look at things on the surface and we try to form a judgment based on first impression. We dress in a certain way to convey certain images. Does smart dressing change our intelligence or knowledge? No. Throughout history, we have seen better technology lose out in the market place. Thus, having the best technology does not secure success. Marketing, image management, perception management, education, visibility, training, etc. are vital.

For those who keep calling for a native GUI, you might want to subscribe to the Web400 mailing list, where there's an active community of people discussing Web technologies applicable to IBM i. And covering J2EE, PHP, CGI, Net.Data, EGL, 3rd party vendor solutions, and such. It's a good place to ask questions and discuss a broad range of alternatives.

IMHO, native GUI is not the same as 3rd party vendor solutions.

If I went to a car dealer and the car dealer told me that I needed to find a 3rd party vendor for the wheels, I would go to another car dealer.

IBM can either develop a native GUI or have a contract with a 3rd party vendor (or outsource to a 3rd party vendor) to provide the "native GUI." The key is to be able to show the IBM i's GUI when marketing the system. This is the same as car manufacturers having contracts with tire makers.

The potential problems that come to one’s mind when one hears multiple vendors are compatibility, integration, consistency, seamlessness, maintenance, upgrade, etc.

Further, when one encounters problems in a multi-vendor system, having one or multiple vendors to take responsibilities is like pulling teeth out of a tiger's mouth. Most of the times, vendors will try to perfect their passing the buck skills in such situations.

Given a choice, these are problems one can live without. And there are many choices in the marketplace.

From Keng Siau
IMHO, native GUI is not the same as 3rd party vendor solutions.  The key is to be able to show the IBM i's GUI when marketing the system.

It puzzles me that people keep demanding a "native GUI" from IBM, even though IBM has offered a lot of GUI solutions. So just being a solution from IBM obviously doesn't fit the bill.

Do you want to come up with a real specification? That seems to be the real problem. People have vague notions about what they want, and they endlessly complain about it to IBM, but nobody has come up with a specification that has universal appeal.

The most universal common denominator seems to be browsers from Microsoft and Mozilla and associated plug-ins.

Realistically, Microsoft, Mozilla, Adobe, Apple, Google, and W3C have such strongholds on GUI client standards and technologies that even IBM is forced to bend to them.

What is a native GUI? What is the specification? Can it be stated in enough detail to be implemented? Does it have real teeth? Would it appeal to as many people as the 5250 interface did in the early 90's? Would it unify a vast majority of IBM i developers?

My guess is that none of those who are most demanding about a native GUI will come up with a specification that has any teeth. So I'd suggest that folks be a little more tolerant of IBM's position on the matter, and respectful of other vendors who enter the fray.

Well... I guess there are different stake holders involved in this GUI discussion and they have vested interests. So, may be it is good for me to state my vested interest to make the discussion transparent.

I am an academic and involved in exposing business students and executives to IBM Power Systems. Our main objective in this collaboration with IBM is to expose business students to IBM products and software. We are trying to have more business managers and executives that are exposed and have some basic knowledge on IBM i and Power Systems. These business managers and executives will be more receptive to IBM i and Power Systems when business proposals involving them land on their desks.

It is interesting to note that what we are doing is directly addressing the latest Golden Concern identified by the COMMON Europe's Top Concerns 2008 survey: making management understand the value of System i. We started our program before the survey was conducted.

The second-most-cited Golden Concern identified by the COMMON Europe's Top Concerns 2008 survey was "native graphical user interface (or modernize application)." Is this an important concern? Yes, at least according to those respondents to the survey. And we have read about this GUI issue for a long time and on numerous occasions on this website.

Should the GUI issue be addressed? If so, how should we solve the GUI issue? I think we should leave that to IBM. Too many cooks spoil the broth. IBM needs to do their cost-benefit analysis, competitive advantage evaluation, competitive necessity study, etc.

IBM knows that GUI is a concern. To do something about it or not is up to IBM and whatever IBM decides will impact the products’ market shares and competitiveness of the products. Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution or win-win-win-win… solution for IBM and all its partners and clients.

Personally, I think the native GUI issue should be addressed by IBM and addressed quickly. But, that’s just my two cents' worth of opinion.

The GUI deal all comes down to how you'd present it just as has been stated.

Sure perception is everything, but it comes down to how the application is shown to the user not how the system's administered.

I agree fully with the statement of what are you going to do with this native GUI when/if you get it? How does it help in terms of platform acceptance? The CEO doesn't care if the system's graphical, they care about the application it runs. Let's not confuse the two.

Understand that beyond remote desktop or perhaps Citrix or some such thing, why does it matter that Windows Server is graphical? It doesn't.

AIX, z/OS both not native GUI per se. Both work fine and are accepted. Same goes for other UNIXes. I actually did a survey on BroadbandReports and nearly every admin there uses SSH. So....for admin they don't care.

For the user, you use whatever you need to show the app in a browser and that's it. The backend doesn't have to be GUI. The native GUI is a red herring IMHO.

Should the GUI issue be addressed? If so, how should we solve the GUI issue? I think we should leave that to IBM. Too many cooks spoil the broth.

Not to be contrary, but statements like that validate my impression that people find it very hard to come up with a specification; even a high-level one. Do people even know what they want?

Years ago, folks were asking IBM to morph OS/400 into something comparable to Windows NT. That was their idea of a "native GUI". My initial thought was, oh my gosh! The highest priority task would be the one monitoring mouse and keyboard events! Talk about taking the best server on the planet and morphing it into a workstation! I hope they don't do that!

Frankly, there are some remarkable graphical user interfaces right now in use, using various programming languages and techniques; some running natively under the IBM i virtual machine, others running under the Java virtual machine, and others running under PASE.

From a pragmatic point of view, my suggestion is to start learning and applying the technologies that are out there today. They're maturing. People are discussing them. Join the discussion.

"...Understand that beyond remote desktop or perhaps Citrix or some such thing, why does it matter that Windows Server is graphical? It doesn't. ..."

What this argument misses is the unique integrated nature of IBM i. When you want to know what is causing a bug in an application or how to add a new feature, IBM i offers multiple tools and techniques for programmers to do their job. The integrated call stack, history and job logs, journaling, exit points, source code xref tools, integrated debugger, etc.

In traditional green screen and batch programming, all these tools are available. But when you switch to a windows or unix server model, many of these great features are diminished. Browser, PC client and web service access to the system can't be traced, monitored and understood like a green screen app can.

When you look at the QINTER and QBATCH subsystems using WRKACTJOB the programmer and admin have access to a wealth of information. Not so with the QUSRWRK sbs thru which ODBC clients access the system. All you see there are a bunch of jobs named QZDASOINIT running as user QUSER.

-Steve

Regarding GUI, it is obvious that the viewpoints from different parties will be different because of vested interests -- vendors, clients, users, etc. Even for users, it depends on whether they are technicians, programmers, system administrators, DBAs, end-users, etc.




That's the reason I said IBM has to decide on what is best for IBM i for the next decade or more. Rationally, assuming IBM still wants to grow the IBM i market and keep IBM i going, IBM needs to win battles along the way. In winning a battle, some casualties are unavoidable. IBM has to look at the big picture. IBM needs to lead the way and inform the partners on what is going to happen and allow enough time for IBM's partners to prepare themselves. It is hard to win a battle when a general needs to consult every solider and seek consensus and ensure no solider will soil his/her uniform. Who knows, IBM may choose not to do anything on GUI. IBM may think that GUI is not an important component in winning battles. So be it.

l


What we can do is to provide our feedback and opinions. And I believe that is the main reason we are posting our comments on this website – not that we have nothing better to do or we have too much time on our hand. The decision is the prerogative of IBM :-)




With this, I rest my case. I will be travelling also :-) Have a great summer!

Wonder how long it will be when the platform features the 128-bit processor it was originally designed to support back in the 80s? God bless you, Mr. Soltis.

Thank you Keng Siau for your analogy of the car and the wheels. IBM started by forcing us to front-end a PC if we wanted Rumba back in the early 90's. This gave Microsoft a major foot in the door.

Then it went down-hill rapidly from there. Going to a third party, who always charges outrageous fees, for GUI or Browser-based solutions tacked on top of the System-i does not cut it. So back to Windows-based "plug-ins"!

Many of those third parties such as ASNA and California Software (now Infinite) have bit the hand that fed it and work to get the IBM user off of the System-i onto windows-based applications development environments.

You have rested your case, Keng Siau, have a great summer! I remind the characters that have disagreed that I remember many, many other blindly loyal IBM-Heads over the past decade. I remember them and they are mostly unemployed now or have segued over to being ASP 2.0/3.0 Web Programmers.

I will enjoy my summer too.

--John.

P.S. Happy birthday to the S/38 and AS/400! And get off of your complacency!

Steve, I don't believe you understand my post entirely.

I am fully aware of the integrated nature of the platform, having been in this space for a good 14 years now.

The point is, for administration, why does a native GUI matter? And I contend, like others have said, it doesn't. IBM Director Navigator and other tools work for this type of thing. It doesn't have to be "native."

In terms of tracking, monitoring etc of the browser world, yes there are challenges. However, I still agree that the browser is the platform for a lot of apps going forward. Adding those tracking mechanisms are the development challenges for Rochester to undertake.

The say its your Birthday!

But Ma and Pa and the entire extended family and friends, are putting you under the microscope.

I too have been part of the S? AS? i? ?family since 1981, including all the ups, downs and fond memories.

Thank You IBM, and the challenges go on. Another day, another book, another chapter. The Law of the jungle, and survival of the strongest.

Thank You,
Charlie C