Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:12:41 -0500, Rob Scott rsc...@rocketsoftware.com wrote: A note for the achives - be aware that working with large screen sizes on z/OS 1.10+ can cause hang conditions in certain ISPF modules unless you increase the HIBFREXT value in TSOKEY00. We had to set our HIBFREXT to 96000 to overcome the problems. Rob, Thanks for this post back in February. We are just rolling out 1.10 and one of my coworkers was running into a hang on 1 LPAR when using a H ALL in SDSF. I haven't converted that many people to using large screen sizes, but he is one of them. After I started debugging the problem by eliminating the VTAM session manager and the emulator we both were using (Vista TN3270), he opened a PMR. About 5 minutes later (after I had my coffee), I remembered your post and checked TSOKEY00 on this particular LPAR.On this particular LPAR HIBFREXT was set to 6600. It was set to 48000 everywhere else and we haven't seen a problem but we both use 62 x 142.Since ISPF does support larger sizes now, we changed this LPAR to 96000 and plan on changing the rest also. Glad I was monitoring IBM-MAIN on February 25th. :-) Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:mark.zel...@zurichna.com z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
200 happened to be the maximum that the tn3270 emulator I use would support. Mark T. Regan, K8MTR CTO1 USNR-Retired (1969-1991) - Original Message From: Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 1:19:41 PM Subject: Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost) On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:09:07 -0700, Mark T. Regan wrote: Tom, Are you doing this with ISPF on v1.10 or an earlier version of z/OS? I ran into the problem with 1.10 after using 65x200 just fine on 1.9. When I started testing with v1.10, it stopped working. When I backed the screen size down to 65x160, it worked okay with v.10. 1.10. I tried 65x200 and ended up with 24x80. Same with 65x162. It seems ISPF doesn't like anything greater than 160. I also tried it on a z/OS 1.9 system and got the same result. Out of curiosity, why 200? Is there something that wide that you look at? -- Tom Marchant - Original Message From: Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 11:19:29 AM Subject: Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost) FWIW, I have been happily using 90x142 since you mentioned it. I got to wondering how big I could go, so I tried 120x160 and got: ISPI001 Invalid screen size. The width cannot exceed 160 and the depth cannot exceed 62 I have determined that 102x160 works and 103x160 does not. 115x142 works and 116x142 does not. 102x160 is 16,320 bytes. 115x142 is 16,330 bytes. It seems that ISPF allows 16K (16384 bytes) for the screen buffer. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:16:03 -0700, Edward Jaffe wrote: Mark Zelden wrote: From the ISPF User Guide Vol II, this is the official support statement: 2.1.2 Terminal characteristics 1. ISPF supports screen sizes from 24 x 80 characters to 62 x 160 characters. That's not an official support statement. That's just simply doc that never got updated. I have an RCF open for this: FWIW, I have been happily using 90x142 since you mentioned it. I got to wondering how big I could go, so I tried 120x160 and got: ISPI001 Invalid screen size. The width cannot exceed 160 and the depth cannot exceed 62 I have determined that 102x160 works and 103x160 does not. 115x142 works and 116x142 does not. 102x160 is 16,320 bytes. 115x142 is 16,330 bytes. It seems that ISPF allows 16K (16384 bytes) for the screen buffer. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
Tom Marchant wrote: FWIW, I have been happily using 90x142 since you mentioned it. I got to wondering how big I could go, so I tried 120x160 and got: ISPI001 Invalid screen size. The width cannot exceed 160 and the depth cannot exceed 62 I have determined that 102x160 works and 103x160 does not. 115x142 works and 116x142 does not. 102x160 is 16,320 bytes. 115x142 is 16,330 bytes. It seems that ISPF allows 16K (16384 bytes) for the screen buffer. Right. There are three addressing schemes for 3270 buffer addresses: o 12-bit addressing. The original hokey method in which only the low-order six bits in each byte are used for addressing and the upper bits are set as necessary to translate the two-byte value into valid characters. The scheme can address only up to 4096 bytes. o 14-bit addressing. The low order 14-bits of the address are used for addressing. The two upper bits must be zero. This scheme is handy because it can easily coexist with 12-bit addressing. Smaller devices will always send 12-bit addresses, where the upper two bits are guaranteed to be non-zero, and larger devices will always send 14-bit addresses where the upper two bits are guaranteed zero. Code can easily test the upper two bits to understand what kind of address has been sent by the device. This scheme can address only up to 16K bytes. This seems to be the most popular addressing scheme for large screen savvy products. Apparently, it's the one used by ISPF. o 16-bit addressing. All sixteen bits are used for addressing. Coexistence with 12-bit addressing is harder because you must test an indicator in a control block somewhere to tell you whether the device is using 16-bit addresses. You cannot test the top two bits of the address to see if 12-bit addresses are in use. This scheme can address up to 64K bytes--the maximum supported by 3270. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 edja...@phoenixsoftware.com http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
Tom, Are you doing this with ISPF on v1.10 or an earlier version of z/OS? I ran into the problem with 1.10 after using 65x200 just fine on 1.9. When I started testing with v1.10, it stopped working. When I backed the screen size down to 65x160, it worked okay with v.10. Mark T. Regan, K8MTR CTO1 USNR-Retired (1969-1991) - Original Message From: Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 11:19:29 AM Subject: Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost) On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:16:03 -0700, Edward Jaffe wrote: Mark Zelden wrote: From the ISPF User Guide Vol II, this is the official support statement: 2.1.2 Terminal characteristics 1. ISPF supports screen sizes from 24 x 80 characters to 62 x 160 characters. That's not an official support statement. That's just simply doc that never got updated. I have an RCF open for this: FWIW, I have been happily using 90x142 since you mentioned it. I got to wondering how big I could go, so I tried 120x160 and got: ISPI001 Invalid screen size. The width cannot exceed 160 and the depth cannot exceed 62 I have determined that 102x160 works and 103x160 does not. 115x142 works and 116x142 does not. 102x160 is 16,320 bytes. 115x142 is 16,330 bytes. It seems that ISPF allows 16K (16384 bytes) for the screen buffer. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:09:07 -0700, Mark T. Regan wrote: Tom, Are you doing this with ISPF on v1.10 or an earlier version of z/OS? I ran into the problem with 1.10 after using 65x200 just fine on 1.9. When I started testing with v1.10, it stopped working. When I backed the screen size down to 65x160, it worked okay with v.10. 1.10. I tried 65x200 and ended up with 24x80. Same with 65x162. It seems ISPF doesn't like anything greater than 160. I also tried it on a z/OS 1.9 system and got the same result. Out of curiosity, why 200? Is there something that wide that you look at? -- Tom Marchant - Original Message From: Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 11:19:29 AM Subject: Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost) FWIW, I have been happily using 90x142 since you mentioned it. I got to wondering how big I could go, so I tried 120x160 and got: ISPI001 Invalid screen size. The width cannot exceed 160 and the depth cannot exceed 62 I have determined that 102x160 works and 103x160 does not. 115x142 works and 116x142 does not. 102x160 is 16,320 bytes. 115x142 is 16,330 bytes. It seems that ISPF allows 16K (16384 bytes) for the screen buffer. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:32:45 -0600, Mark Zelden mark.zel...@zurichna.com wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:28:13 -0600, Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:42:29 -0800, Edward Jaffe wrote: Hmmm. I'm playing with it now and it looks pretty good (other than I can't figure out how to get a 90x142 display like I'm accustomed to.) Wow! Thanks, Ed. I've been using 62x142 for a while. Thought that 62 lines was all ISPF would support. I just tried 90x142 and I think I'm hooked already. Using Vista. I tried 90... way too small. I'm sure it would be even worse when I have to work from my laptop (at work I plug into a docking station with a 17 monitor). I went down to 80 and it was readable but too scrunched. I decreased by 2 and kept trying and the font didn't change until I hit 68. The font is slightly smaller than my 62, but still looks proportional as opposed to scrunched. I could live with that, but I think working from my laptop monitor it would be hard to read. The 62 already is. Mark Well... I've been using 68x142 instead of 62x142 since I posted this in February and I'm used to the smaller font size. The only problem I've run into is MXI when I exit some panels: *** * ISPV006 * * Data truncation occurred * Data for CHAR format variable MXIBUF was too long. * *** MXI G2 probably does not have this problem. I may switch back to 62 x 142 (6 lines less real estate isn't that much). From the ISPF User Guide Vol II, this is the official support statement: 2.1.2 Terminal characteristics 1. ISPF supports screen sizes from 24 x 80 characters to 62 x 160 characters. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:mark.zel...@zurichna.com z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
Just tried both MXI G2 and MXI 4.3 on a 68x142 display and I was able to re-create the probem with MXI 4.3. It appears to be a boundary error when calculating the dynamic area size for scrolling operations. MXI G2 handles this screen size just fine. Rob Scott Rocket Software, Inc 275 Grove Street Newton, MA 02466 617-614-2305 rsc...@rs.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Zelden Sent: 10 March 2009 14:07 To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost) On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:32:45 -0600, Mark Zelden mark.zel...@zurichna.com wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:28:13 -0600, Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:42:29 -0800, Edward Jaffe wrote: Hmmm. I'm playing with it now and it looks pretty good (other than I can't figure out how to get a 90x142 display like I'm accustomed to.) Wow! Thanks, Ed. I've been using 62x142 for a while. Thought that 62 lines was all ISPF would support. I just tried 90x142 and I think I'm hooked already. Using Vista. I tried 90... way too small. I'm sure it would be even worse when I have to work from my laptop (at work I plug into a docking station with a 17 monitor). I went down to 80 and it was readable but too scrunched. I decreased by 2 and kept trying and the font didn't change until I hit 68. The font is slightly smaller than my 62, but still looks proportional as opposed to scrunched. I could live with that, but I think working from my laptop monitor it would be hard to read. The 62 already is. Mark Well... I've been using 68x142 instead of 62x142 since I posted this in February and I'm used to the smaller font size. The only problem I've run into is MXI when I exit some panels: *** * ISPV006 * * Data truncation occurred * Data for CHAR format variable MXIBUF was too long. * *** MXI G2 probably does not have this problem. I may switch back to 62 x 142 (6 lines less real estate isn't that much). From the ISPF User Guide Vol II, this is the official support statement: 2.1.2 Terminal characteristics 1. ISPF supports screen sizes from 24 x 80 characters to 62 x 160 characters. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:mark.zel...@zurichna.com z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
Mark Zelden wrote: From the ISPF User Guide Vol II, this is the official support statement: 2.1.2 Terminal characteristics 1. ISPF supports screen sizes from 24 x 80 characters to 62 x 160 characters. That's not an official support statement. That's just simply doc that never got updated. I have an RCF open for this: RCF In ISPF User's Guide Volume II, under Screen Format there are two errors: http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/ispzu270/2.1.2 1. It says that Std keeps your screen at 24x80. This is wrong. I'm presently running my emulator session with 90x80 default (primary) screen size and 92x142 alternate screen size. The Std setting forces me to the default (primary) size of 90x80. There is no 24-rows limit with Std. 2. It says ISPF supports screen sizes from 24 x 80 characters to 62 x 160 characters. The upper limit of 62x160 was removed in z/OS 1.9 ISPF. /RCF -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 edja...@phoenixsoftware.com http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:16:03 -0700, Edward Jaffe edja...@phoenixsoftware.com wrote: Mark Zelden wrote: From the ISPF User Guide Vol II, this is the official support statement: 2.1.2 Terminal characteristics 1. ISPF supports screen sizes from 24 x 80 characters to 62 x 160 characters. That's not an official support statement. That's just simply doc that never got updated. I have an RCF open for this: Thanks for correcting my liberal use of the word official. Nothing documented is ever official and an APAR can be opened as a doc error even when you think it is official. :-) RCF In ISPF User's Guide Volume II, under Screen Format there are two errors: http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/ispzu270/2.1.2 1. It says that Std keeps your screen at 24x80. This is wrong. I'm presently running my emulator session with 90x80 default (primary) screen size and 92x142 alternate screen size. The Std setting forces me to the default (primary) size of 90x80. There is no 24-rows limit with Std. 2. It says ISPF supports screen sizes from 24 x 80 characters to 62 x 160 characters. The upper limit of 62x160 was removed in z/OS 1.9 ISPF. /RCF Thanks. I happen to be running on 1.9 here, so I guess I'll live with the MXI annoyance (I don't expect Rob to fix the freeware version) and continue to use 68x142 since it is supported. BTW, I've sent in several RCFs myself recently and have been surprised how quickly I get a response and a draft update back in my inbox. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:mark.zel...@zurichna.com z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
Which IPCS display uses 143 columns? I thought IPCS used only 141. IPCS uses up to 136. We did this already (but it was probably 2 years ago). Nope. IPCS uses what it can get, it seems. I just see the proof in a verbx mtrace output row 60, column 157 for one message. I must have missed the IPCS discussion 2 years ago. It was my understanding that IPCS reports are 'sort of' preformatted - so they may appear to only use 14x columns. The verbx vsmdata report used to change its format depending on the width of the screen - definitely different layout for 80 column screens. Some reports didn't have the need to scroll to the right, others would always use at least 132 or thereabouts. best regards, Barbara -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:32:09 -0600, Tom Marchant m42tom- ibmm...@yahoo.com wrote: I used to routinely specify LOGMODE=D4C32XX3 when I connected. That was before I learned that I could add this to the [Telnet3270] section in PComm: TerminalTypeString=IBM-DYNAMIC That tells TCPIP to use that as the default logmode. Don't know if or how this relates, but there is also the [3270] setting: QueryReplyMode=Auto Art Gutowski Ford Motor Company -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:25:37 -0600, Barbara Nitz nitz-...@gmx.net wrote: Which IPCS display uses 143 columns? I thought IPCS used only 141. IPCS uses up to 136. We did this already (but it was probably 2 years ago). Nope. IPCS uses what it can get, it seems. I just see the proof in a verbx mtrace output row 60, column 157 for one message. I must have missed the IPCS discussion 2 years ago. snip Sorry, it wasn't an IPCS discussion, it was the same discussion as this. And my statement was misleading. The 136 is the size needed to browse storage and see 8 hex words on the left plus the EBCDIC stuff on the right side of the screen. I think that was the size Ed was using initially and what I used also until I realized I wanted to be able to edit/view lrecl=133 and see the whole thing with the sequence numbers. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:mark.zel...@zurichna.com z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 3270 emulator cost
Brennan's Vista. At $30 a seat for a perpetual license, you can't get a better TN3270 emulator. Not only is it cheap, it's way better than PCOMM, Extra, RUMBA, etc. Check it out at www.tombrennansoftware.com. I also recommand Vista tn3270 to everyone. But better than is not right. It always depend on the needed features. For example, if you need EHLLAPI/WinHLLAPI, then you can't use Vista because it doesn't support this stuff. But I guess for the $40.000 Tom Brennan would implelent this ;- Advantages of Vista (imho) o VERY VERY good readable Font! IMHO the greatest 3270 Font! o Vista is small- it fires up quickly and you get quickly conncted o powerful macro language o Tom Brennan gives great support (he implemented extensions to the macro language for me - try this with IBM or other competitors) o It simply works! Disadvantages: o No EHLLAPI / WinHLLAPI o Dialogs are really old-fashioned (yes I know, who cares, but for the first time user they really look, ehem, strange). I personally would never use another emulator if I had the choice. bye, Michael Regards, Tom Conley -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Michael Knigge Entwicklung S.E.T. Software GmbH Lister Straße 15 30163 Hannover Tel. +49 511/3 97 80-23 Fax +49 511/3 97 80-65 michael.kni...@set-software.de Handelsregister: HRB52778 Amtsgericht Hannover Geschäftsführer: Till Dammermann, Klaus Stöhr -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 3270 emulator cost
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:24:14 -0800, Natarajan Mohan nmo...@edfund.org wrote: I am not sure whether I have found any emulation software cheaper than mochasoft (not including x3270 on Linux or other flavors of Unix). Its $250 enterprise licence and maintenance is free of cost and includes upgrades. Support turnaround time is very quick as well when bugs found. http://www.mochasoft.dk/ I concur. It has some technical limitations that make Sysprogs prefer PCOMM, but for End Users it is good enough. I got excellent service when I needed it (Code Page 500, now standard). Dave -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
Barbara Why did your using 62x162 require a mode table entry to be defined for you? Didn't simply using D4A32XX3, D4C32XX3 or D4B32XX3 as appropriate from ISTINCLM or a private mode table equivalent work for you? Since such mode table entries cause the Read Partition-Query exchange to be used once the session is in place - assumed to be supported by all emulators worth their salt, you can experiment with any row and column combinations that might take your fancy purely by adjusting your emulator parameters without bothering those busy - and scarce - VTAM-knowledgeable network guys. Chris Mason On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:02:33 +0100, Barbara Nitz nitz-...@gmx.net wrote: Just out of curiosity, what do you normally see in columns 143 through 160? Is it mostly just a lot of black (background)? Or do some products/displays you use actually put something useful there? I also use 62x162 (after 'my network guys' - that's how I call them) defined that logmode for me. And SDSF uses what it can get - on the CK panel you can see more of what you would have to pf11 otherwise to see. I was going to say IPCS uses them all, but it doesn't. It stops at 143, I think. I guess a 255 lrecl VB dataset in SDSF would use all columns, too, but I don't have one handy to test. Out of curiosity, Ed: Given that you're EJES, do you use SDSF? Best regards, Barbara -- Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger01 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 3270 emulator cost
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:53:16 -0500, Mark Pace mpac...@gmail.com wrote: I like the way Vista looks, but see nothing about SSL/TLS support. It does that too. Jantje. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
I use the Hummingbird HostExplorer product, which I have set to 65x200, and it works okay with TPX. Of course, when I connect to it, TPX thinks I'm a MOD2. But for each session I have set up in TPX, I have the Modent name set to D4C32XX3, which overrides what TPX thinks my screen size is. 65x200 works well with TSO/ISPF, NetView, SDSF on JES2, and eJES on JES3. Mark T. Regan, K8MTR CTO1 USNR-Retired (1969-1991) From: Brian Peterson brian.peterson.ibm.m...@comcast.net To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 5:23:48 PM Subject: Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost) Thanks to Ed's encouragement, I've switched my sessions to 62x160 and am very happy with the result. My screen size choices are limited to those supported by TPX, and 62x160 was the largest that TPX could handle (with one fix which was published about a year ago) - TPX basically only handles the standard mod-2,3,4,5 and the 3290 panel sizes 62x80, 31x160, and my favorite, 62x160. Brian On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:28:13 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:42:29 -0800, Edward Jaffe wrote: Hmmm. I'm playing with it now and it looks pretty good (other than I can't figure out how to get a 90x142 display like I'm accustomed to.) Wow! Thanks, Ed. I've been using 62x142 for a while. Thought that 62 lines was all ISPF would support. I just tried 90x142 and I think I'm hooked already. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
Chris, given that I have no clue when it comes to network things - I asked my network guy. That's his answer: Yes, he's right. I tried. It works with Logmode=D4C32XX3. Then one wouldn't need a specially defined one. Having said that, I am now using 62x162 primarily because I don't have to fiddle with the .ws file of pcomm anymore - version 5.9 allows it to define via the definition panels (and will not overwrite when I have to change other things). And, the logmode name d4c32xx3 isn't exactly intuitive, is it? while the name of my logmode is: snx62162 (as in sna extended 62 by 162) vbg And my network guy has this logmode name in the name of the netview access, so all I need to remember is nvasxx7 - with the 7 standing for the logmode. Best regards, Barbara -- Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger01 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
Barbara You asked so here's my best shot at the answer: D - *D*efault because the mode table entry is in the default table ISTINCLM and, since this is always present concatenated after any private mode tables (MODETAB operand of the LU or LOCAL statement), it implies a mode table entry name (mode name) naming standard - not that it was ever published as such to my knowledge 4 - because the mode table entry is relevant to a 327*4* as opposed to a 327*6*, these being the two types of controller available at the time the vast number of 3270 mode table entries were added to ISTINCLM C - because the mode table entry is for a C model, as opposed to an A, B or D model 32 - because mode table entry applies to the range of devices are those beginning with the number 32 XX - because these particular mode table entries are of a general nature and so don't belong to any particular model - a bit weak this one! 3 - a reference to the all-important X'03' in the penultimate byte of the PSERVIC operand which gives the mode table entry it's flexibility with respect to presentation space dimensions Actually, I guess you're right, intuitive it ain't! In fact, you'd have to ask one Bruce Kohler who dreamed up the mode table entry names - or perhaps a successor who may have been responsible for these one ending in 3 - what he had in mind when dreaming up the names. Recall that they had to be valid in a mode table entry (mode name) name space with only 8 characters - typical IBM limitation - to play with. Although you may feel that, with private mode tables, you have more flexibility, it became clear to any who had to bother with it - and German customers had to more than most incidentally - that, when using the alias function with interconnected SNA networks, even with private mode tables, there is only one mode table entry name space. All this to say that, in principle, you need to be careful not when dreaming up names for your mode table entries. Or - there's nothing so simple that network guys can't make it complicated! On a serious note, you may like to ask your network guys to look into setting up D4C32XX3 - or a private equivalent - as the mode table entry to be used universally, thereby allowing the emulator user total control of the rows and columns without reference to mode table entry names - or Unformatted System Services (USS) commands such as your nvasxx7 with the mode table entry name built into it. It's important that both emulator and application program understand the Read Partition-Query exchange but that's what I told my students up to 20 years or so ago now. I'd be amazed if there were still an application that didn't recognise Read Partition-Query and, as I said, any emulator you were tempted to use these days should contain this support. Getting back to the topic in hand, I've bee assisting a customer recently using Extra and we couldn't get away from the rows and columns implied by the standard 3278 model. If there's anyone still reading this who knows different, perhaps they can jump in. Chris Mason On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:38:57 +0100, Barbara Nitz nitz-...@gmx.net wrote: Chris, given that I have no clue when it comes to network things - I asked my network guy. That's his answer: Yes, he's right. I tried. It works with Logmode=D4C32XX3. Then one wouldn't need a specially defined one. Having said that, I am now using 62x162 primarily because I don't have to fiddle with the .ws file of pcomm anymore - version 5.9 allows it to define via the definition panels (and will not overwrite when I have to change other things). And, the logmode name d4c32xx3 isn't exactly intuitive, is it? while the name of my logmode is: snx62162 (as in sna extended 62 by 162) vbg And my network guy has this logmode name in the name of the netview access, so all I need to remember is nvasxx7 - with the 7 standing for the logmode. Best regards, Barbara -- Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger01 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Edward Jaffe Brian Peterson wrote: Thanks to Ed's encouragement, I've switched my sessions to 62x160 and am very happy with the result. My screen size choices are limited to those supported by TPX, and 62x160 was the largest that TPX could handle (with one fix which was published about a year ago) - TPX basically only handles the standard mod-2,3,4,5 and the 3290 panel sizes 62x80, 31x160, and my favorite, 62x160. Glad to hear I was inspirational. 8-) Just out of curiosity, what do you normally see in columns 143 through 160? Is it mostly just a lot of black (background)? Or do some products/displays you use actually put something useful there? ISPF browse/view/edit, of a file with LRECL = 160, File-Aid and SDSF DA use all 160 columns on my 62x160 emulation sessions. -jc- -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Barbara Nitz I also use 62x162 (after 'my network guys' - that's how I call them) defined that logmode for me. ... Huh? The D4C32XX3 logmode entry is supplied by IBM in ISTINCLM, which is the default logmode table for VTAM. -jc- -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 06:25 -0600, Chris Mason wrote: Or - there's nothing so simple that network guys can't make it complicated! Never a truer word ... I quite often tune out when trying to follow Chris' novella that he passes off as posts. This one actually had enough info I could relate to that I managed to stay the distance. Well done Chris ;0) Shane ... -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Log modes (was Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost))
Chris, well, like Shane, I managed to read through all your post :-).I *know* why I leave that to my network guys Actually, your query made them start to play with that logmode *and* different screen sizes. The biggest being 200x200. Results in an almost unreadable 15 display. ISPF in the default setting cannot handle it, I get thrown to a 24x80 screen size. Calling SDSF from TSO READY results in a nice abend0C4 on an CLCL instruction that has me fairly baffled because the actual TEA on the CLCL instruction is LESS than the starting point (as far as I can see). I must have a brain check somewhere. Anyway, that abend0c4 also occurs when I set the parm named scrsize in the sdsf parms. That thing is set to 1920 on all our systems, which doesn't faze SDSF - it works with 62x162 screen sizes. Does anyone know if that parm is actually relevant to SDSF? Or if it gets ignored routinely? On a serious note, you may like to ask your network guys to look into setting up D4C32XX3 - or a private equivalent - as the mode table entry to be used universally, thereby allowing the emulator user total control of the rows and columns without reference to mode table entry names - or Unformatted System Services (USS) commands such as your nvasxx7 with the mode table entry name built into it. No need to. One of them outed himself as being subscribed here, too (hi Frank), so they see this, anyway. And I'm sure one of them will hit me with an idea how to use it one of these days. :-) As for Extra. I remember that I gave up on it when I worked in an installation that had extra. Couldn't get it to use the 62x162 mode that I was accustomed to. At that time I blamed my missing knowledge of what I'm doing in this area. Best regards, Barbara -- Computer Bild Tarifsieger! GMX FreeDSL - Telefonanschluss + DSL für nur 17,95 ¿/mtl.!* http://dsl.gmx.de/?ac=OM.AD.PD003K11308T4569a -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
I do NOT understand how you do it. Even with a 17 wide screen monitor the font is to small to read comfortably. Anymore than 43 lines is to hard on my eyes. On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.comwrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:42:29 -0800, Edward Jaffe wrote: Hmmm. I'm playing with it now and it looks pretty good (other than I can't figure out how to get a 90x142 display like I'm accustomed to.) Wow! Thanks, Ed. I've been using 62x142 for a while. Thought that 62 lines was all ISPF would support. I just tried 90x142 and I think I'm hooked already. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- Mark Pace Mainline Information Systems 1700 Summit Lake Drive Tallahassee, FL. 32317 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 06:25:13 -0600, Chris Mason wrote: On a serious note, you may like to ask your network guys to look into setting up D4C32XX3 - or a private equivalent - as the mode table entry to be used universally, thereby allowing the emulator user total control of the rows and columns without reference to mode table entry names - or Unformatted System Services (USS) commands such as your nvasxx7 with the mode table entry name built into it. I used to routinely specify LOGMODE=D4C32XX3 when I connected. That was before I learned that I could add this to the [Telnet3270] section in PComm: TerminalTypeString=IBM-DYNAMIC That tells TCPIP to use that as the default logmode. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:28:13 -0600, Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:42:29 -0800, Edward Jaffe wrote: Hmmm. I'm playing with it now and it looks pretty good (other than I can't figure out how to get a 90x142 display like I'm accustomed to.) Wow! Thanks, Ed. I've been using 62x142 for a while. Thought that 62 lines was all ISPF would support. I just tried 90x142 and I think I'm hooked already. Using Vista. I tried 90... way too small. I'm sure it would be even worse when I have to work from my laptop (at work I plug into a docking station with a 17 monitor). I went down to 80 and it was readable but too scrunched. I decreased by 2 and kept trying and the font didn't change until I hit 68. The font is slightly smaller than my 62, but still looks proportional as opposed to scrunched. I could live with that, but I think working from my laptop monitor it would be hard to read. The 62 already is. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:mark.zel...@zurichna.com z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:10:12 -0500, Mark Pace wrote: I do NOT understand how you do it. Even with a 17 wide screen monitor the font is to small to read comfortably. Anymore than 43 lines is to hard on my eyes. 17 inches isn't very big, and wide screen doesn't help with this. When I wrote that I was using the 15 screen on my laptop. It is about 9 inches high. Now, at the office with the 20 monitor, it is much better. On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Tom Marchant wrote: Wow! Thanks, Ed. I've been using 62x142 for a while. Thought that 62 lines was all ISPF would support. I just tried 90x142 and I think I'm hooked already. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Mark Pace I do NOT understand how you do it. Even with a 17 wide screen monitor the font is to small to read comfortably. Anymore than 43 lines is to hard on my eyes. On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.comwrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:42:29 -0800, Edward Jaffe wrote: Hmmm. I'm playing with it now and it looks pretty good (other than I can't figure out how to get a 90x142 display like I'm accustomed to.) Wow! Thanks, Ed. I've been using 62x142 for a while. Thought that 62 lines was all ISPF would support. I just tried 90x142 and I think I'm hooked already. Yeah, 62x160 is about my comfort limit on a 19 LCD monitor. -jc- -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
*TerminalTypeString=IBM-DYNAMIC* Thank you for that! On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.comwrote: On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 06:25:13 -0600, Chris Mason wrote: On a serious note, you may like to ask your network guys to look into setting up D4C32XX3 - or a private equivalent - as the mode table entry to be used universally, thereby allowing the emulator user total control of the rows and columns without reference to mode table entry names - or Unformatted System Services (USS) commands such as your nvasxx7 with the mode table entry name built into it. I used to routinely specify LOGMODE=D4C32XX3 when I connected. That was before I learned that I could add this to the [Telnet3270] section in PComm: TerminalTypeString=IBM-DYNAMIC That tells TCPIP to use that as the default logmode. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- Mark Pace Mainline Information Systems 1700 Summit Lake Drive Tallahassee, FL. 32317 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
I was stuck in 54x80 until I followed this thread. Thanks to it, I was inspired to discover the proper ISPF screen size setting to get around the screen size flip going in and out of 80 character data. I always hated 27x133 because of that (reverting back to 24x80 on the main menu - I like having more rows). I'm not sure I could get used to 90x142, though... Regards, Art Gutowski Ford Motor Company On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:10:12 -0500, Mark Pace mpac...@gmail.com wrote: I do NOT understand how you do it. Even with a 17 wide screen monitor the font is to small to read comfortably. Anymore than 43 lines is to hard on my eyes. On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Tom Marchant m42tom- ibmm...@yahoo.comwrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:42:29 -0800, Edward Jaffe wrote: Hmmm. I'm playing with it now and it looks pretty good (other than I can't figure out how to get a 90x142 display like I'm accustomed to.) Wow! Thanks, Ed. I've been using 62x142 for a while. Thought that 62 lines was all ISPF would support. I just tried 90x142 and I think I'm hooked already. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
On 25 Feb 2009 06:15:14 -0800, mpac...@gmail.com (Mark Pace) wrote: I do NOT understand how you do it. Even with a 17 wide screen monitor the font is to small to read comfortably. Anymore than 43 lines is to hard on my eyes. The standards seem to be changing - not quite as fast as my fogey eyes are - so that 17 is no longer considered large for a monitor.The economy may make it difficult to upgrade right now, but new computers where I work have bigger monitors.I have asked for and received larger monitors in the past (when the standards were smaller), and am about ready to do so again. Monitors are just far enough away that I really don't *need* glasses for them (my long distance vision is still better than 20-20, if not as good as it once was). But I work better with reading glasses, and I am more productive when I can read more with my terminal program. I expect I can create a winning case for a new monitor - at least when the budget isn't so bad. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:56:41 -0800, Edward Jaffe edja...@phoenixsoftware.com wrote: Barbara Nitz wrote: Out of curiosity, Ed: Given that you're EJES, do you use SDSF? Funny. As one would expect, we use (E)JES exclusively. It's been using the whole display in all of the environments it supports (TSO/TPUT, TSO/PUTLINE, ISPF, CICS, batch, our own multi-user VTAM system, callable API, REXX, etc.) for many years. Which IPCS display uses 143 columns? I thought IPCS used only 141. IPCS uses up to 136. We did this already (but it was probably 2 years ago). I use 142. You need 141 to see all columns of lrecl=133 output with edit because of the editor sequence numbers. 141 does work with ISPF, but not with REVIEW (REVEDIT) as it only supports an even number. -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:mark.zel...@zurichna.com z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
SV: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
From which version was the limit of 62 rows extended in ISPF ? Is there some special setting that You have to do for that ? Regards, Thomas Berg __ Thomas Berg Specialist IT-U SWEDBANK -Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] För Mark Zelden Skickat: den 25 februari 2009 16:11 Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Ämne: Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost) On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:56:41 -0800, Edward Jaffe edja...@phoenixsoftware.com wrote: Barbara Nitz wrote: Out of curiosity, Ed: Given that you're EJES, do you use SDSF? Funny. As one would expect, we use (E)JES exclusively. It's been using the whole display in all of the environments it supports (TSO/TPUT, TSO/PUTLINE, ISPF, CICS, batch, our own multi-user VTAM system, callable API, REXX, etc.) for many years. Which IPCS display uses 143 columns? I thought IPCS used only 141. IPCS uses up to 136. We did this already (but it was probably 2 years ago). I use 142. You need 141 to see all columns of lrecl=133 output with edit because of the editor sequence numbers. 141 does work with ISPF, but not with REVIEW (REVEDIT) as it only supports an even number. -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:mark.zel...@zurichna.com z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:10:12 -0500, Mark Pace mpac...@gmail.com wrote: I do NOT understand how you do it. Even with a 17 wide screen monitor the font is to small to read comfortably. Anymore than 43 lines is to hard on my eyes. Are you sure? I've had this discussion with many of my co-workers who look at my monitor from behind and ask how I can read it. For all but a very small percentage of them... it's just perception and what they are used to. As a test, ALT+TAB over to your email and compare the font size to what you think is too small for your 3270 emulator. One thing I have found that has made it much easier for me, is to not use the screen format - data ISPF support nor the alternate primary size that Ed worked so hard to get implemented (BINPSZRC). I use screen size - max all the time so I always see the small size instead of it getting big as I swap between ISPF panels. Yes, there is that white space / brackets (whatever) at the sides of the viewable data for those panels and the wrapping issue with ISPF option 6 (which I rarely use), but overall I like it *much* better as do the people I've converted to using the large screen sizes. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:mark.zel...@zurichna.com z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
Tom and Mark Using whatever means you have with your TN3270E emulator to specify the RFC 2355 device-type character string to IBM-DYNAMIC assumes that you have kept the TN3270E server mapping of device-types strings to mode table entry names. If you look at the default TELNETDEVICE statements, you will see that IBM- DYNAMIC maps to D4C32XX3 in the TN3270E column (also the TN3270 column in this case). It's because of this association that IBM-DYNAMIC, in effect, avoids you having to specify D4C32XX3 in your Unformatted System Services (USS - the original!) command. There is an alternative to all TN3270E users modifying the PCOMM file. This would be simply to define each TELNETDEVICE statement as follows: TELNETDEVICE IBM-3278-2 ,D4C32XX3 TELNETDEVICE IBM-3278-3 ,D4C32XX3 TELNETDEVICE IBM-3278-4 ,D4C32XX3 TELNETDEVICE IBM-3278-5 ,D4C32XX3 TELNETDEVICE IBM-3278-2-E ,D4C32XX3 TELNETDEVICE IBM-3278-3-E ,D4C32XX3 TELNETDEVICE IBM-3278-4-E ,D4C32XX3 TELNETDEVICE IBM-3278-5-E ,D4C32XX3 TELNETDEVICE IBM-DYNAMIC ,D4C32XX3 That way, no matter which device-type was offered by the emulator, the TN3270 server would specify D4C32XX3 as the mode name, corresponding to the mode table entry name, when issuing the REQSESS macro which initiates the SNA 3270 session. Probably some are now tempted to point out that I have missed the device- types including 3279. Well, yes I have - for the reason that any emulator that used them would not be in compliance with RFC 2355 - which I assume all are. Incidentally, I can tell that, whoever set up the USS table you used to use - possibly still use - associated the BAL format with the USS command you habitually used, hence LOGMODE=D4C32XX3. Had you used the default format, PL1, you would have had to enter LOGMODE(D4C32XX3). Chris Mason On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:57:37 -0500, Mark Pace mpac...@gmail.com wrote: *TerminalTypeString=IBM-DYNAMIC* Thank you for that! On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Tom Marchant m42tom- ibmm...@yahoo.comwrote: On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 06:25:13 -0600, Chris Mason wrote: On a serious note, you may like to ask your network guys to look into setting up D4C32XX3 - or a private equivalent - as the mode table entry to be used universally, thereby allowing the emulator user total control of the rows and columns without reference to mode table entry names - or Unformatted System Services (USS) commands such as your nvasxx7 with the mode table entry name built into it. I used to routinely specify LOGMODE=D4C32XX3 when I connected. That was before I learned that I could add this to the [Telnet3270] section in PComm: TerminalTypeString=IBM-DYNAMIC That tells TCPIP to use that as the default logmode. -- Tom Marchant -- Mark Pace Mainline Information Systems 1700 Summit Lake Drive Tallahassee, FL. 32317 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
Mark Zelden wrote: One thing I have found that has made it much easier for me, is to not use the screen format - data ISPF support nor the alternate primary size that Ed worked so hard to get implemented (BINPSZRC). I use screen size - max all the time so I always see the small size instead of it getting big as I swap between ISPF panels. Yes, there is that white space / brackets (whatever) at the sides of the viewable data for those panels and the wrapping issue with ISPF option 6 (which I rarely use), but overall I like it *much* better as do the people I've converted to using the large screen sizes. Yes, bouncing screen sizes are awkward and distracting. Sometimes rows you could see in one mode disappear in the other. That's the reason I keep the rows constant between primary/alternate screen sizes and use Screen format 1. Data under ISPF. If I find myself using an emulator or environment that supports only a 24x80 primary size, then I always use Screen format 3. Max under ISPF as you have suggested. That setting uses the alternate screen size only. I've found 90x80 ideal for editing JCL, assembler language source code and/or displaying any other screen with traditional 80-byte card ancestry. The input fields wrap as you would expect them to, for example on the TSOCMD panel. But, I agree it's more difficult to establish and maintain this kind of configuration. FWIW, here is the logmode I use for PCOMM. TITLE 'P9090142' ** *90X80 AND 90X142* ** P9090142 MODEENT LOGMODE=P9090142, FMPROF=X'03', TSPROF=X'03', PRIPROT=X'B1', SECPROT=X'90', COMPROT=X'3080', RUSIZES=X'87F8', PSERVIC=X'02805A505A8E7F00', APPNCOS=#CONNECT -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 edja...@phoenixsoftware.com http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
Anyone have a clue how to work with Extra! outside of the standard Models 2,3,4,5? -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu]on Behalf Of Chris Mason Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 4:25 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost) snip Getting back to the topic in hand, I've bee assisting a customer recently using Extra and we couldn't get away from the rows and columns implied by the standard 3278 model. If there's anyone still reading this who knows different, perhaps they can jump in. Chris Mason -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
BlueZone supports custom default and alternate sizes up to 90 x 162 and is easily configured. It also supports multiple explicit partitions allowing split and splitv in ISPF to display 4 sessions. Steve Bireley BlueZone Software Bluezone Secure FTP is Free -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
On 25 Feb 2009 08:54:13 -0800, sbire...@bluezonesoftware.com (Steve Bireley) wrote: BlueZone supports custom default and alternate sizes up to 90 x 162 and is easily configured. It also supports multiple explicit partitions allowing split and splitv in ISPF to display 4 sessions. Yesterday I spent a while trying to set someone up to use wide screen ISPF under BlueZone. I made lots of screen prints of my settings, but we never quite got it until I e-mailed her my configuration file. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
A note for the achives - be aware that working with large screen sizes on z/OS 1.10+ can cause hang conditions in certain ISPF modules unless you increase the HIBFREXT value in TSOKEY00. We had to set our HIBFREXT to 96000 to overcome the problems. Rob Scott Rocket Software, Inc 275 Grove Street Newton, MA 02466 617-614-2305 rsc...@rs.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Edward Jaffe Sent: 25 February 2009 15:52 To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost) Mark Zelden wrote: One thing I have found that has made it much easier for me, is to not use the screen format - data ISPF support nor the alternate primary size that Ed worked so hard to get implemented (BINPSZRC). I use screen size - max all the time so I always see the small size instead of it getting big as I swap between ISPF panels. Yes, there is that white space / brackets (whatever) at the sides of the viewable data for those panels and the wrapping issue with ISPF option 6 (which I rarely use), but overall I like it *much* better as do the people I've converted to using the large screen sizes. Yes, bouncing screen sizes are awkward and distracting. Sometimes rows you could see in one mode disappear in the other. That's the reason I keep the rows constant between primary/alternate screen sizes and use Screen format 1. Data under ISPF. If I find myself using an emulator or environment that supports only a 24x80 primary size, then I always use Screen format 3. Max under ISPF as you have suggested. That setting uses the alternate screen size only. I've found 90x80 ideal for editing JCL, assembler language source code and/or displaying any other screen with traditional 80-byte card ancestry. The input fields wrap as you would expect them to, for example on the TSOCMD panel. But, I agree it's more difficult to establish and maintain this kind of configuration. FWIW, here is the logmode I use for PCOMM. TITLE 'P9090142' ** *90X80 AND 90X142* ** P9090142 MODEENT LOGMODE=P9090142, FMPROF=X'03', TSPROF=X'03', PRIPROT=X'B1', SECPROT=X'90', COMPROT=X'3080', RUSIZES=X'87F8', PSERVIC=X'02805A505A8E7F00', APPNCOS=#CONNECT -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 edja...@phoenixsoftware.com http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
3270 emulator cost
As part of a replacement for a 12 year old system at a customer site in Japan, we will be replacing PCs running Windows 95 and IBM's PCOMM 3270 emulator with new PCs running Vista (don't bother) and a PCOMM replacement from IBM called Host Access Client Package. This new package comes with two pretty hefty price tags: approximately $1,000 purchase price per PC and approximately $250 per PC per year license fees. We will have 40 PCs. I can live with the $40K one time purchase cost even though I think it is pretty high but it seems absurd that the $10K license fees are 1/4 of the purchase price. In my experience, this is not the type of package that gets updated very often (actually I've never seen a 3270 emulator update). Does anyone have any experience with this Host Access Client Package? Are the fees comparable in other countries? Do other packages (Extra, Rumba, etc) charge annual fees? I would love to use one of the 3270 emulation products frequently mentioned here but I'm going to need ammunition to overcome the political inertia. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 3270 emulator cost
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Schwarz, Barry A Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 12:31 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: 3270 emulator cost As part of a replacement for a 12 year old system at a customer site in Japan, we will be replacing PCs running Windows 95 and IBM's PCOMM 3270 emulator with new PCs running Vista (don't bother) and a PCOMM replacement from IBM called Host Access Client Package. This new package comes with two pretty hefty price tags: approximately $1,000 purchase price per PC and approximately $250 per PC per year license fees. We will have 40 PCs. I can live with the $40K one time purchase cost even though I think it is pretty high but it seems absurd that the $10K license fees are 1/4 of the purchase price. In my experience, this is not the type of package that gets updated very often (actually I've never seen a 3270 emulator update). Does anyone have any experience with this Host Access Client Package? Are the fees comparable in other countries? Do other packages (Extra, Rumba, etc) charge annual fees? I would love to use one of the 3270 emulation products frequently mentioned here but I'm going to need ammunition to overcome the political inertia. SNIP QWS3270 (Jolly Giant) does have annual maint fees. And they do put out some maint yearly. I'm *guessing* that for 40 seats, Jolly Giant would be in the neighborhood of US$600 (initial) if not less for a site license and annual maint after that less than $100. So if the parties concerned aren't math challenged... Regards, Steve Thompson -- Opinions expressed by this poster may not be those of poster's employer. -- -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 3270 emulator cost
Try www.ericom.com I worked with most products in the market, they are second best only to IBMs PCOM and only because they don't support console streams. Itschak On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Schwarz, Barry A barry.a.schw...@boeing.com wrote: As part of a replacement for a 12 year old system at a customer site in Japan, we will be replacing PCs running Windows 95 and IBM's PCOMM 3270 emulator with new PCs running Vista (don't bother) and a PCOMM replacement from IBM called Host Access Client Package. This new package comes with two pretty hefty price tags: approximately $1,000 purchase price per PC and approximately $250 per PC per year license fees. We will have 40 PCs. I can live with the $40K one time purchase cost even though I think it is pretty high but it seems absurd that the $10K license fees are 1/4 of the purchase price. In my experience, this is not the type of package that gets updated very often (actually I've never seen a 3270 emulator update). Does anyone have any experience with this Host Access Client Package? Are the fees comparable in other countries? Do other packages (Extra, Rumba, etc) charge annual fees? I would love to use one of the 3270 emulation products frequently mentioned here but I'm going to need ammunition to overcome the political inertia. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 3270 emulator cost
VISTA3270 at $30 per copy is the best I have used. There is no yearly maintenance fee, but you can always get the latest version. Also Tom is quick to respond to any problems discovered. My evaluation of 'best' is based on what it does, not the price. I have used three other emulators, none of which were as good as Vista3270 Christopher Y. Blaicher Senior Software Developer Austin Development Lab phone: 512.340.6154 moble: 512.627.3803 fax: 512.340.6647 10431 Morado Circle Austin, TX 78759 BMC Software -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Schwarz, Barry A Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 12:31 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: 3270 emulator cost As part of a replacement for a 12 year old system at a customer site in Japan, we will be replacing PCs running Windows 95 and IBM's PCOMM 3270 emulator with new PCs running Vista (don't bother) and a PCOMM replacement from IBM called Host Access Client Package. This new package comes with two pretty hefty price tags: approximately $1,000 purchase price per PC and approximately $250 per PC per year license fees. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 3270 emulator cost
I would put TLS/SSL capability at number one on my requirements list. Lack of console support is a deal breaker for me. For many types of workstations, a secure FTP feature is also on my 'must have' list. Depending on the business mission, I'd consider some special purpose 3270 'thin client' machines. Consider that any Windows machine is going to need a near constant stream of fixes and the reboots therein. Just some thoughts. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Schwarz, Barry A Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 12:31 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: 3270 emulator cost As part of a replacement for a 12 year old system at a customer site in Japan, we will be replacing PCs running Windows 95 and IBM's PCOMM 3270 emulator with new PCs running Vista (don't bother) and a PCOMM replacement from IBM called Host Access Client Package. This new package comes with two pretty hefty price tags: approximately $1,000 purchase price per PC and approximately $250 per PC per year license fees. We will have 40 PCs. I can live with the $40K one time purchase cost even though I think it is pretty high but it seems absurd that the $10K license fees are 1/4 of the purchase price. In my experience, this is not the type of package that gets updated very often (actually I've never seen a 3270 emulator update). Does anyone have any experience with this Host Access Client Package? Are the fees comparable in other countries? Do other packages (Extra, Rumba, etc) charge annual fees? I would love to use one of the 3270 emulation products frequently mentioned here but I'm going to need ammunition to overcome the political inertia. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any files transmitted with it are intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The message, together with any attachment, may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, printing, saving, copying, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete all copies. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 3270 emulator cost
Schwarz, Barry A wrote: Does anyone have any experience with this Host Access Client Package? Are the fees comparable in other countries? Do other packages (Extra, Rumba, etc) charge annual fees? EVERYONE with a reasonably current copy of PCOMM has experience with this package. It's just PCOMM, packaged with Host on Demand. (Read about it on IBM's web site.) I agree, the price is ridiculous. But, you should be able to buy just one copy, deploy HOD on Linux, WIndows, or z/OS, and get 95% of PCOMM facilities for almost free. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 edja...@phoenixsoftware.com http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 3270 emulator cost
Barry, I'd check out www.sdisw.com for Tn3270 Plus which is around $40. We are also using their FTP client, LPD. Tn3270 also works as a console on our z9 mainframe. It also supports Vista. Don Don Bolton Director Technical Services www.OpentechSystems.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Schwarz, Barry A Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 12:31 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: 3270 emulator cost As part of a replacement for a 12 year old system at a customer site in Japan, we will be replacing PCs running Windows 95 and IBM's PCOMM 3270 emulator with new PCs running Vista (don't bother) and a PCOMM replacement from IBM called Host Access Client Package. This new package comes with two pretty hefty price tags: approximately $1,000 purchase price per PC and approximately $250 per PC per year license fees. We will have 40 PCs. I can live with the $40K one time purchase cost even though I think it is pretty high but it seems absurd that the $10K license fees are 1/4 of the purchase price. In my experience, this is not the type of package that gets updated very often (actually I've never seen a 3270 emulator update). Does anyone have any experience with this Host Access Client Package? Are the fees comparable in other countries? Do other packages (Extra, Rumba, etc) charge annual fees? I would love to use one of the 3270 emulation products frequently mentioned here but I'm going to need ammunition to overcome the political inertia. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 3270 emulator cost
- Original Message - From: Edward Jaffe edja...@phoenixsoftware.com Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 2:02 PM Subject: Re: 3270 emulator cost Schwarz, Barry A wrote: Does anyone have any experience with this Host Access Client Package? Are the fees comparable in other countries? Do other packages (Extra, Rumba, etc) charge annual fees? EVERYONE with a reasonably current copy of PCOMM has experience with this package. It's just PCOMM, packaged with Host on Demand. (Read about it on IBM's web site.) I agree, the price is ridiculous. But, you should be able to buy just one copy, deploy HOD on Linux, WIndows, or z/OS, and get 95% of PCOMM facilities for almost free. I must take issue with my good friend Edward Jaffe over his recommendation of HOD. The HOD installs I've used are just abysmal. No keyboard mapping, bad highlighting and 3270 extended stream support, screwy fonts, no IND$FILE support, just to name a few. I recommend Tom Brennan's Vista. At $30 a seat for a perpetual license, you can't get a better TN3270 emulator. Not only is it cheap, it's way better than PCOMM, Extra, RUMBA, etc. Check it out at www.tombrennansoftware.com. Regards, Tom Conley -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 3270 emulator cost
Pinnacle wrote: I must take issue with my good friend Edward Jaffe over his recommendation of HOD. The HOD installs I've used are just abysmal. No keyboard mapping, bad highlighting and 3270 extended stream support, screwy fonts, no IND$FILE support, just to name a few. Hmmm. I'm playing with it now and it looks pretty good (other than I can't figure out how to get a 90x142 display like I'm accustomed to.) But, it looks good at 43x80. I see it has support for ftp file transfers. Isn't that even better than IND$FILE? I recommend Tom Brennan's Vista. At $30 a seat for a perpetual license, you can't get a better TN3270 emulator. Not only is it cheap, it's way better than PCOMM, Extra, RUMBA, etc. Check it out at www.tombrennansoftware.com. One thing I really appreciate about Tom's emulator is the support for user-specified default screen sizes. But, last I checked, it wouldn't accept anything above 70 something rows for the default screen size. It was disconcerting to have a 70x80 default screen size and 90x142 alternate. I like keeping the rows the same (90x80 default and 90x142 alternate). -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 edja...@phoenixsoftware.com http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:42:29 -0800, Edward Jaffe wrote: Hmmm. I'm playing with it now and it looks pretty good (other than I can't figure out how to get a 90x142 display like I'm accustomed to.) Wow! Thanks, Ed. I've been using 62x142 for a while. Thought that 62 lines was all ISPF would support. I just tried 90x142 and I think I'm hooked already. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 3270 emulator cost
I like the way Vista looks, but see nothing about SSL/TLS support. On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Pinnacle pinnc...@rochester.rr.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Edward Jaffe edja...@phoenixsoftware.com Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 2:02 PM Subject: Re: 3270 emulator cost Schwarz, Barry A wrote: Does anyone have any experience with this Host Access Client Package? Are the fees comparable in other countries? Do other packages (Extra, Rumba, etc) charge annual fees? EVERYONE with a reasonably current copy of PCOMM has experience with this package. It's just PCOMM, packaged with Host on Demand. (Read about it on IBM's web site.) I agree, the price is ridiculous. But, you should be able to buy just one copy, deploy HOD on Linux, WIndows, or z/OS, and get 95% of PCOMM facilities for almost free. I must take issue with my good friend Edward Jaffe over his recommendation of HOD. The HOD installs I've used are just abysmal. No keyboard mapping, bad highlighting and 3270 extended stream support, screwy fonts, no IND$FILE support, just to name a few. I recommend Tom Brennan's Vista. At $30 a seat for a perpetual license, you can't get a better TN3270 emulator. Not only is it cheap, it's way better than PCOMM, Extra, RUMBA, etc. Check it out at www.tombrennansoftware.com. Regards, Tom Conley -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- Mark Pace Mainline Information Systems 1700 Summit Lake Drive Tallahassee, FL. 32317 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 3270 emulator cost
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 16:53 -0500, Mark Pace wrote: I like the way Vista looks, but see nothing about SSL/TLS support. Tom's had SLL v3 for ages - on the latest/current version. Go download it, and use your current license key. What a deal. Not obvious where it is - well, at least I missed it. Tom politely pointed out my lack of perception. Shane ... -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 3270 emulator cost
- Original Message - From: Mark Pace mpac...@gmail.com Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 4:56 PM Subject: Re: 3270 emulator cost I like the way Vista looks, but see nothing about SSL/TLS support. Tom added SSL support in V1.26. Works great! Regards, Tom Conley -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 3270 emulator cost
Let's make that SSL Tom's had SLL v3 for ages ... -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
Thanks to Ed's encouragement, I've switched my sessions to 62x160 and am very happy with the result. My screen size choices are limited to those supported by TPX, and 62x160 was the largest that TPX could handle (with one fix which was published about a year ago) - TPX basically only handles the standard mod-2,3,4,5 and the 3290 panel sizes 62x80, 31x160, and my favorite, 62x160. Brian On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:28:13 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:42:29 -0800, Edward Jaffe wrote: Hmmm. I'm playing with it now and it looks pretty good (other than I can't figure out how to get a 90x142 display like I'm accustomed to.) Wow! Thanks, Ed. I've been using 62x142 for a while. Thought that 62 lines was all ISPF would support. I just tried 90x142 and I think I'm hooked already. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 3270 emulator cost
I am not sure whether I have found any emulation software cheaper than mochasoft (not including x3270 on Linux or other flavors of Unix). Its $250 enterprise licence and maintenance is free of cost and includes upgrades. Support turnaround time is very quick as well when bugs found. http://www.mochasoft.dk/ Natarajan NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY The information contained in this communication, including but not limited to any accompanying document(s) and/or attachment(s), is privileged and confidential and is intended solely for the above-named individual(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that any distribution, copying, disclosure, and/or use of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please destroy all copies of the communication, whether in electronic or hard copy format, and immediately contact the Security Office at EDFUND at (916) 526-7539 or securityoff...@edfund.org. Thank you. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
Brian Peterson wrote: Thanks to Ed's encouragement, I've switched my sessions to 62x160 and am very happy with the result. My screen size choices are limited to those supported by TPX, and 62x160 was the largest that TPX could handle (with one fix which was published about a year ago) - TPX basically only handles the standard mod-2,3,4,5 and the 3290 panel sizes 62x80, 31x160, and my favorite, 62x160. Glad to hear I was inspirational. 8-) Just out of curiosity, what do you normally see in columns 143 through 160? Is it mostly just a lot of black (background)? Or do some products/displays you use actually put something useful there? -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 edja...@phoenixsoftware.com http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
Just out of curiosity, what do you normally see in columns 143 through 160? Is it mostly just a lot of black (background)? Or do some products/displays you use actually put something useful there? I also use 62x162 (after 'my network guys' - that's how I call them) defined that logmode for me. And SDSF uses what it can get - on the CK panel you can see more of what you would have to pf11 otherwise to see. I was going to say IPCS uses them all, but it doesn't. It stops at 143, I think. I guess a 255 lrecl VB dataset in SDSF would use all columns, too, but I don't have one handy to test. Out of curiosity, Ed: Given that you're EJES, do you use SDSF? Best regards, Barbara -- Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger01 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
Barbara Nitz wrote: Out of curiosity, Ed: Given that you're EJES, do you use SDSF? Funny. As one would expect, we use (E)JES exclusively. It's been using the whole display in all of the environments it supports (TSO/TPUT, TSO/PUTLINE, ISPF, CICS, batch, our own multi-user VTAM system, callable API, REXX, etc.) for many years. Which IPCS display uses 143 columns? I thought IPCS used only 141. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 edja...@phoenixsoftware.com http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 3270 emulator cost
I'll add a second that to recommend jollygiant's QWS3270. or QWS3270 Secure. (The secure version supports SSL/TLS, and may be turned on/off on a per-host basis) My experience with them has been nothing less than GREAT! I've made many suggestions to improve the product over the years and (almost) all have been implemented. The cost is a fraction of what you're quoting here, even if you buy individual licenses. It supports RFC1572 which IBM use for their express login if that's important to you. QWS3270 is my emulator of choice. I have my own license, and take it with me when I work at client sites, if they don't have it already. Donald Russell On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Schwarz, Barry A barry.a.schw...@boeing.com wrote: As part of a replacement for a 12 year old system at a customer site in Japan, we will be replacing PCs running Windows 95 and IBM's PCOMM 3270 emulator with new PCs running Vista (don't bother) and a PCOMM replacement from IBM called Host Access Client Package. This new package comes with two pretty hefty price tags: approximately $1,000 purchase price per PC and approximately $250 per PC per year license fees. We will have 40 PCs. I can live with the $40K one time purchase cost even though I think it is pretty high but it seems absurd that the $10K license fees are 1/4 of the purchase price. In my experience, this is not the type of package that gets updated very often (actually I've never seen a 3270 emulator update). Does anyone have any experience with this Host Access Client Package? Are the fees comparable in other countries? Do other packages (Extra, Rumba, etc) charge annual fees? I would love to use one of the 3270 emulation products frequently mentioned here but I'm going to need ammunition to overcome the political inertia. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Screen size (was 3270 emulator cost)
oh well, Ed, if you want to get picky :-) Which IPCS display uses 143 columns? I thought IPCS used only 141. I was guessing that it goes to column 143. What are 2 columns among friends? Guess it only uses 141. (I am using an inverse colour layout - white background - so the column/line number is only slightly less white and hard to read.) Best regards, Barbara -- Computer Bild Tarifsieger! GMX FreeDSL - Telefonanschluss + DSL für nur 17,95 ¿/mtl.!* http://dsl.gmx.de/?ac=OM.AD.PD003K11308T4569a -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
