This is drifting a bit off topic, but the IBM PC/AT-G, and PC/AT-GX (I
think that's correct, the "G" was for Graphics) were very popular in the
oil & gas business in the late 80s, early 90s...they were dual headed
bocks that ran GDDM-PCLK (PC link) and GDDM had support for developing
interestin
On 8/15/06, Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think it's safe to say that GDDM, as good as it was in it's day, is a
thing of the past now. But I still use it occasionally here, and the the
IBM PCOMM3270 emulator supports it and it's two separate graphics
formats just fine.
When I was you
I think it's safe to say that GDDM, as good as it was in it's day, is a
thing of the past now. But I still use it occasionally here, and the the
IBM PCOMM3270 emulator supports it and it's two separate graphics
formats just fine.
DJ
A. Harry Williams wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:28:17 -0400
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:28:17 -0400 David Boyes said:
>Even bigger problem is finding a tn3270 client that understands 3270
>graphics (at least for Windows -- thank you Brown University for the Mac
>tn3270!)
>(yes, I know GDDM does more than 3270, but it's hard to justify the
>other devices if you c
Even bigger problem is finding a tn3270 client that understands 3270
graphics (at least for Windows -- thank you Brown University for the Mac
tn3270!)
(yes, I know GDDM does more than 3270, but it's hard to justify the
other devices if you can't preview the output before you send it off to
them...
Remember that GDDM is only one option. As was mentioned, the browser
interface is another way to do graphics, though non-technical reasons
make that a non-option for some cases.
Bill Bitner
Jim Bohnsack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I think a bigger problem with requiring GDDM is that the use of i
I think a bigger problem with requiring GDDM is that the use of it has
fallen so much due to the PC connected "terminals". GDDM was great when it
was the best way to get a nice looking graph or chart. Requiring GDDM now
makes about as much sense as requiring real, not virtual card input. I
s
I would suggest that you take a look at the suite of VM (and Linux!)
performance products offered by Velocity Software
(http://www.velocitysoftware.com/). I can recommends them highly.
While GDDM can produce nice looking plots of performance data, a problem
with it is that it is not licensed f
We (at NY State) have the same issues with our Network Group on enabling
browser based access. At best non-responsive. In any case...
We also run OMEGAMON to extract performance data (another Group).
I do have acces to that, however we (the VM Systems Programmers)
want to have a separate means of
Implementing the Web interface would require approval from our network
security people who regularly abuse the open port to find out if this
software is a) spying on us, b) providing a portal for every eigth-grade
hacker, or c) supplying porn for all those over-weight white men in tshir
ts.
It is n
Ted,
as Thomas Kern wrote, the graphics work just as intended: I liked (and still
prefer) the idea of automatically adapted scales when using the tool for
performance analysis ..
But I agree that for capacity planning purposes or general statistics a
fixed scale is often better. The clean sol
My feeling is that the graphics in the Performance Toolkit satisfy the
interests of the original author. If you want more, you need to go to a real
graphics package. GDDM comes to mind, but so do some vague unpleasant memories,
but I do think that dual scales (a left hand scale for CPU and a right
12 matches
Mail list logo
