I agree. ROSCOE was clunky & less productive. I’ve never used the other TSO alternatives. I seem to remember vaguely ROSCOE requiring the user to “attach” the member you wanted to edit but that was 35 years ago.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Thursday, September 7, 2023, 9:15 PM, Leonard D Woren <ibm-main...@ldworen.net> wrote: Bill Johnson wrote on 9/7/2023 1:05 PM: > We used to use ROSCOE at a small shop in the 80’s because it used less > resources. I hated it. ROSCOE was one of a collection of TSO alternatives, which were all junk. TONE, ACEP, Wylbur, maybe more that I don't remember. They all had 1 two-pronged design goal: except for Wylbur, a PITA in its own category, allow TSO-like online use without the perceived overhead of TSO, and also, they would run on systems other than MVS. The reason the resource utilization of all of those was lower than TSO is that it took longer for programmers to get their work done, so the resource utilization was spread out over more elapsed time, lowering the apparent resources used in a given elapsed time period, but also lowering productivity. Something beancounters generally don't factor because they don't understand it. They liked the fact that a given set of hardware could support 50 (choose your poison from above) online users while TSO could support only 25. Fortunately, we're way past hardware costing more than people. /Leonard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
