Huh? Where does "the image won't fit on a 24x80 screen" come from?
Supporting new device capabilities does not mean that old devices are unsupported. ISPF supports, e.g., colors, but it works on a 3277 as well as it ever did. Had IBM done as I suggest, there would not have been a requirement for a new geometry and ISPF would still work on an old device. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [[email protected]] on behalf of Phil Smith III [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 4:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: AUXLIST (was XEDIT equivalent to ISPF C - OO/OO (copy overlay)) Shmuel wrote: >Memory was less expensive when the 3278 and 3279 came out, and optionally inserting character attributes would not have been a major redesign. The addition of extended attributes (SA orders) would have been the plausible time. In fact, those are so close to this that it MUST have been considered; I can imagine a discussion something like: "This isn't a 'color or no color' thing: this is screen geometry. We have 24x80 fallback for larger screens, but that's going *smaller*: this will mean a new application *cannot* use existing hardware, because the image won't fit on a 24x80 screen. That would be Bad." We'll never know. I did have a boss for a year or two who once told us that while at IBM he'd been responsible for VTAM V1. I would have kept that secret to my grave, if I were him. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
