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
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
: 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
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
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
-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
-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
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
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
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:
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
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.
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
-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
*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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
, 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
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
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
- 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
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
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
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
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.
- 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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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,
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)
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
62 matches
Mail list logo
