On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:02:16 -0700, Edward Jaffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... >It's even simpler than that! $$. They simply don't want to have to >maintain two interfaces! I could be wrong, but I think it's more than just the interfaces. I think they were moving at least some of the databases, too. Even more $$$. >...They should have simply left the 3270 interface operational until >they had a web implementation that proved itself worthy of taking over. >Instead, they announced the 3270 interface would "sunset" on September >1, 2001. Laughable!... Yeah, but there weren't enough people using the web interface to really highlight the problems until they tried shutting down the 3270 interface. I absolutely agree that IBM did a terrible job of this, but a lot of us didn't start using the web interface until we had too, so IBM didn't get a good test. It looks to me like the real problem was in project management. They should have known they weren't gettig the workload needed to validate the new system, so they should have been more alert when the workload finally moved to the web. When the new system proved it couldn't handle the real world, IBM should have immediately come up with a different plan while letting customers continue using the 3270 interface. (On the other hand, nobody should pay any attention to anything I say about project management. Project management and I reside in different universes.) Pat O'Keefe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
