OK, what I wrote was: ...could either support four 3279 sessions at once, or one 3279 session that took the whole screen (you could switch modes; in single-session mode, you'd then cycle through the sessions).
Which is admittedly not 100% clear, but doesn't make sense as "can only display one session at a time", because then there wouldn't be a single-session mode, eh? RIF. On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) < [email protected]> wrote: > In > <cafo-8tqp_kd-4auvtnqylmgwlpkm5618dau1atcpb2sa8iy...@mail.gmail.com>, > on 06/02/2015 > at 03:17 PM, zMan <[email protected]> said: > > >Which is what I said it did. > > No, you alsoid that it *couldn't* display more than one session at a > time and didn't mention explicit partitions at all. They say that the > memory is the second thing to go. > > Perhaps you could clarify what you meant by "you could switch modes; > in single-session mode, you'd then cycle through the sessions". > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT > ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html> > We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. > (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
