Well ... subject to interpretation. For example, DOS was a lot closer to
the *original* (pre-ESA) ISPF than Microsoft Windows ever was - and DOS
was also far more efficient. The performance problems with ISPF began
post-XA with the introduction of ESA. The purpose of ESA was to allow
IBM to take control of MVS systems and prevent sysprogs from 'zapping
out' their inefficencies in order to improve performance. IBM would
never admit that, but what cares I for what they say? BTW IBM
'blacklisted' me in the 1980s for continually questioning their
objectives. But I then went to a GSE conference and confronted IBM about
ditto ... and this time in front of their customers. When the latter
started raising their hands in a 'me too' sign, IBM had no choice but to
promise to address my concerns - or to 'blacklist' their other customers
too. IBM chose the former and this resulted in their being unable to
deploy CICS/ESA for about 2 years.
But, sure, ISPF was/is a great improvement on native TSO editing etc.
('edlin' was it, or am I losing track? I have no access to a mainframe
from this machine; so I can't check). But I continue to rip (and zap)
out all the artsy-fartsy 'improvements' introduced in ESA. E.g. I do not
want drop-down menus on my screens, or panel colors etc. stored in my
profile; and I want PFK13-24 as my primary PFKeys: period.
However, I would most strongly advise you to *avoid* choosing the easy
options (mouse-pushing, Ctrl+Alt+Delete etc.) as offered in Windows -
and be, instead, familiar with reading (and, if possible, with writing)
machine code. Intel processors (upon which Windows depends) have an
unavoidably short 'shelf life', because their OP codes - i.e.
instruction sets - are inefficient. For example, each of Intel's CPU
registers (A to F, the last time I wrote Intel assembler - probably
15-17 years ago) has its own set of OP codes ... and these are further
sub-divided, e.g. in the case of the A (accumulator) register, into: AL,
AH, A and AX (if I remember). So, a simple LR (which uses the one OP
code x'18' for *all* registers on an IBM processor) requires 4 OP codes
for the A register alone on an Intel processor. But there are then still
the B to F registers, which all have their own 4 separate OP codes. If
you then add to that the AR, ALR, SR, SLR, XR, OR, NR etc. operations
... you realize that Intel processors soon run out of available OP
codes. So the next Intel 'solution' is to produce dual-core and now, I
believe, quad-core processors. But the practical limit is eight-core
processors. Beyond that, the O/S spends more time keeping track of which
part of which task it has dispatched to which processor, than it has
time to get work done. So expect some six-core and eight-core processors
from Intel - and then "bye bye" (although they might still be useful in
dishwashers). That is why Intel processors cost $100-200 instead of
$50K+ (for CMOS processors that is; no idea what bi-polar ones cost
these days *if* they are still available [the Hitachi Skylines were the
last to use them, in 1995, AFAIK]). But all processors are constrained
*not* to shorten their 'inter-wafer gaps' below about 14nm: otherwise
they produce unpredictable results, because of quantum effects.
Meanwhile, nobody wants to buy an unpredictable PC/lap-top/iPad/etc. -
no matter how much faster it produces unpredictable results. So Wintel's
days of using their current technology are numbered - perhaps another
15 years or so (at a rough guess) - unless they find a way to super-cool
their CPUs to around 3 degrees Kelvin without cracking them. But Wintel
won't care about that: they'll have already made their pretty penny and
will want to spend it.
As a general 'rule of thumb', I would recommend that you choose always
to do whatever is the most difficult yet doable - and leave all the easy
stuff for others. That way they turn into donkeys and you don't (as
Pinocchio might have put it).
Cheers, Chris Poncelet
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
ISPF _is_ Windows for z/OS.
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:22:17 +0100, CM Poncelet wrote:
... because it is moving back towards suppressing intelligence (as Mao
Tse Tung did in China, in the 1960s). We should not all be obliged to
look at pictures just because the majority of people cannot read.
But isn't ISPF itself a large step moving TSO in the direction of what
Windows later became? And is it not "suppressing intelligence" to
relieve users of the burden of learning the syntax of TSO line commands?
You may continue to use the OUTPUT command if that's your preference.
I'll use SDSF.
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
