> >There are some subtle to significant differences from "real > >TSO(tm)", > > The batch TMP jobs we've been running for decades aren't real TSO?
No of course they're not. For one thing, batch TMPs are not interactive and they run in a batch service class - usually at lower priority than TSO. The MVA software that I described runs a copy of the TMP connected to a terminal with a human being at the keyboard, but in a STC instead of in a TSO address space. Which means it gets classified into SYSSTC by default and that's generally higher than regular TSO. So a couple of users doing heavy duty stuff can make a dent in your overall performance in surprising ways. Then how would you notice? Being STCs, they don't show up in the usual places people look for TSO users (SDSF DA OTSU or Display Active) etc etc. You could classify the STCs into the same service classes as TSO, which would remove most of the significant behavioral differences, even if it still left the operators in the dark about what was going on. Like I said, some differences are significant, others aren't. At the end of the day, you can do pretty much anything that you can do in a normal TSO environment, including all of the ISPF things you would normally take for granted. And depending on circumstances you can do all that without VTAM, TCAS or even JES being up. It clearly isn't a place you want a lot of people banging away in. CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
