RE: GUI as nice as character-based
My company just did an evaluation on the various products available to convert the character based applications to GUI. I was not impressed with OI as it had several undocumented features, which had to have workarounds. Most of the problems were in attaching to our existing Unidata database. I was told that the demo version was an older version and that the latest version does not have those problems. I did not receive any other versions. HTH, Steve >but you must run your database on Windows with Revelation, right? I heard >through the grapevine that Windows was going away ;-) so I really want >something that is Windows-independent, yet where any client or server in the >mix could be Windows. > >But I do get the Revelation mailings and I think the company is doing good >work with/for their customers. > >--dawn > >Dawn M. Wolthuis >Tincat Group, Inc. >www.tincat-group.com > >Take and give some delight today. > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Dennis Bartlett >Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 3:56 AM >To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' >Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based > >Dawn > >Why dispense with the work already done in Data/Basic - I >know I plug >the language, and y'all ignore me, but OpenInsight (the GUI >version of >Advanced Revelation) looks and feels just like the Gates >product, _and_ >has the wonderful facility to use your already existing >DataBasic code. > >The basic is called R/Basic, looks just like DataBasic, with >a few extra >concepts like mouse control built in. Type ahead works just >like it does >in U2. > > >-- >u2-users mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
but you must run your database on Windows with Revelation, right? I heard through the grapevine that Windows was going away ;-) so I really want something that is Windows-independent, yet where any client or server in the mix could be Windows. But I do get the Revelation mailings and I think the company is doing good work with/for their customers. --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dennis Bartlett Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 3:56 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based Dawn Why dispense with the work already done in Data/Basic - I know I plug the language, and y'all ignore me, but OpenInsight (the GUI version of Advanced Revelation) looks and feels just like the Gates product, _and_ has the wonderful facility to use your already existing DataBasic code. The basic is called R/Basic, looks just like DataBasic, with a few extra concepts like mouse control built in. Type ahead works just like it does in U2. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
At 01:06 AM 22/04/2004, Anthony Youngman wrote: Java (not necessarily Sun's version) will be available on any platform that people care to put it on. MS have made a point of saying (or at the very least not denying) that .net is intended to work best with Windows and, indeed, parts of it are likely to work ONLY with Windows. MS have applied to patent the .NET api(application no 0030028685). If the patent is granted and microsoft applies rand terms(reasonable and non discriminatory) as opposed to rf terms(royalty free) then every copy of mono or dotgnu or any other .net implementation will require licensing payment to microsoft. ie no open source implementations of .net will be possible. Apparently for the ecma microsoft promised rf for the core, but for other parts asp.net(web pages), ado.net(database access) and System.Windows(the gui) are fair game. Also System.Windows exposes the Win32 api so that you need a copy of windows or a windows emulator to support it. This means it is likely a "C++" solution will develop for C# where programmers on windows use System.Windows and linux developers use a GTK+ wrapper. Compare C++ developers which use MFC on windows and GTK+ or Qt on linux. - Robert -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Hello Anthony, At 08:57 PM 21/04/2004, Anthony Youngman wrote: That's a LITTLE unfair :-) Yes Miguel is a publicist, but the war is fought mainly by clueless lusers who don't understand the real issues :-( Check out this BBC interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/321433.stm ie "I don't think KDE has a future at this point" ...he obviously was trying to foster understanding for the KDE developers with his supporters. ;-) KDE is C++ and Free, Gnome is C and Open. There are fundamentally deep issues with regard to all four choices, and the developers mostly respect each others' viewpoints. It's a shame the lusers can't too. The C based Gnome thing, looks to be under a bit of review at the moment: http://ometer.com/desktop-language.html It will be interesting which way they go C# with a GTK style windowing or java based or stick with C/C++ which is evidently causing them problems. - Robert -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Depends on your "local system". If it's a winterm or xterm, where's the hard disk for you to "have locally installed GUI apps"? What you've just defined is a "fat" client, not a "thin" one. By definition, a thin client *doesn't* *have* a disk attached to the local workstation... Cheers, Wol -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dennis Bartlett Sent: 22 April 2004 09:46 To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based Schalk, you don't have to send the screen layout up and down the lines - have locally installed GUI apps, pointing to remote site data. When the program loads up, it gets all it's programming power from the local workstation, and data transfer is at a minimum. I know this is a nirvana, and a real drag to implement on legacy systems, but it can be done. One solution I saw was to have every possible screen display / prompt string stored in files (this app was a library system, and different language interfaces were stored). These storage files were stored locally on LAN drives, with the data stored at one central place. It worked a bomb. This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. Please e-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error or telephone ECA International immediately and delete the e-mail from your information system. Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)2 9911 7799, Hong Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 and New York +1 212 582 2333. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Over the passed 10 years I have designed and developed numerous GUI front-end's to MV databases and in most cases the data transfer between the client and the server has reduced, no terminal control strings only data. How much data is transferred depends on the design of your app. design Regards Ed Witney NCO Financial Services (UK) Limited 2nd Floor, Windsor House 1270 London Road Norbury SW16 4DH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 0208 565 4749 Fax: 0208 565 4708 DISCLAIMER This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information. -Original Message- From: Schalk van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 April 2004 11:52 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based << File: ATT22903.txt >> Dawn and all, Another aspect of GUI, which we sure have to consider, is data communication lines. Our operation is spread over 1000 kilometres, and sending GUI screens back and forth will certainly clog our lines. Except when you make use of local intelligence. The volume of data sent to paint a GUI screen must certainly be a factor of 50 more than with CUI. (?) Schalk On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:02:31 +0100, Brian Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To go back to Dawn's original post - > > Dawn, > > I've been writing GUI applications for UniVerse for about 15 years now. > Some > have worked, some have - well - been learning experiences. > > You shouldn't really compare GUI and character based. Why? Because then > you > inevitably start to think of the GUI in character based terms - the > arrangement of controls on a form, or the addition of some buttons. > That's > my main beef with 'intelligent' terminals - they obscure the real > picture. > > GUI is not about what you put on the screen. It's about the flow of > information, and how that flow best suits the application in question. > Data > entry is part of that flow, but only part: character based is good for > some > data entry and for administration, but a good application is also about > navigation, culture and the ease of finding information again. > > Here are two very different examples: > > I did a freight forwarding package for a company that previously was > entirely paper based. They took a - let's say "flexible" - approach to > rules, validations, pricing, descriptions etc - and wanted to keep that. > Providing a traditional system, with a nailed down design and entry > screens > just wouldn't work for them. In fact I tried that first as a prototype, > and > it didn't. Not in their culture. > So I designed a system that worked the same way as their forms. Every > page > matched the standard forms they used, except that information > automatically > infilled, was sent to their billing systems, collated to their work flow > for > follow ups and diarising etc ... But all invisibly. What they 'saw' were > the > forms they had used throughout. Even the validation was fairly soft, and > consisted mainly of highlighting things that were suspect. Annoying > popups > were kept to an absolute minimum, text and codes expanded directly from > typing, and generally the whole thing designed to look and feel as > unobtrusive as possible: nothing to interrupt their work flow. I couldn't > have done that with a character based system because it couldn't have > represented the compexity of some of the forms (try doing an airway bill > or > customs declaration form and you'll see what I mean). > > As a more traditional example, I have a project management system that I > both designed and use. This is based on drill down principles, allowing > me > to track projects, modules, scheduled and tasks. Here the advantage of a > GUI > is persistence and workflow: because a GUI allows me to have multiple > windows open modelessly, I can track down from the projects or work lists > into the individual tasks whilst keeping the lists (heirarchically > arranged) > still visible, so I don't have to keep closing down windows or > reselecting: > generally much more efficient. I can also display more, since most of the > time I am interested in viewing information rather than changing it - > and at > the viewing stage I can use smaller fonts to display things that when > amended need larger screen estate. The diary is a case in point: I can > use > colours and smaller fonts to show different entries in a way that a green > screen application wouldn't accommodate. And naturally I keep a
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
>> but remembered not to include the entire original >> post in my response this time -- sorry I forget that on Oops! Me too - sorry folks! -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Dawn Why dispense with the work already done in Data/Basic - I know I plug the language, and y'all ignore me, but OpenInsight (the GUI version of Advanced Revelation) looks and feels just like the Gates product, _and_ has the wonderful facility to use your already existing DataBasic code. The basic is called R/Basic, looks just like DataBasic, with a few extra concepts like mouse control built in. Type ahead works just like it does in U2. You'd have to remove all screen displays (if you wanted to be a purist) or you could do a quick-n-dirty like we did, and get the character based screen output stored in COMO and then parse the required data from there (saved having to re-invent the functionality of each screen. That way the users using character based saw exactly the same data the GUI folk saw without having to create brand new code in an interface one wasn't so familiar with. All we did was write a fancy screen parsing routine, call it from a zillion places, populate a GUI screen and hey! Presto. Somethin' to think about.. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Schalk, you don't have to send the screen layout up and down the lines - have locally installed GUI apps, pointing to remote site data. When the program loads up, it gets all it's programming power from the local workstation, and data transfer is at a minimum. I know this is a nirvana, and a real drag to implement on legacy systems, but it can be done. One solution I saw was to have every possible screen display / prompt string stored in files (this app was a library system, and different language interfaces were stored). These storage files were stored locally on LAN drives, with the data stored at one central place. It worked a bomb. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schalk van Zyl Sent: 20 April 2004 12:52 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based Dawn and all, Another aspect of GUI, which we sure have to consider, is data communication lines. Our operation is spread over 1000 kilometres, and sending GUI screens back and forth will certainly clog our lines. Except when you make use of local intelligence. The volume of data sent to paint a GUI screen must certainly be a factor of 50 more than with CUI. (?) Schalk On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:02:31 +0100, Brian Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To go back to Dawn's original post - > > Dawn, > > I've been writing GUI applications for UniVerse for about 15 years > now. > Some > have worked, some have - well - been learning experiences. > > You shouldn't really compare GUI and character based. Why? Because > then > you > inevitably start to think of the GUI in character based terms - the > arrangement of controls on a form, or the addition of some buttons. > That's > my main beef with 'intelligent' terminals - they obscure the real > picture. > > GUI is not about what you put on the screen. It's about the flow of > information, and how that flow best suits the application in question. > Data entry is part of that flow, but only part: character based is > good for some > data entry and for administration, but a good application is also about > navigation, culture and the ease of finding information again. > > Here are two very different examples: > > I did a freight forwarding package for a company that previously was > entirely paper based. They took a - let's say "flexible" - approach to > rules, validations, pricing, descriptions etc - and wanted to keep > that. Providing a traditional system, with a nailed down design and > entry screens just wouldn't work for them. In fact I tried that first > as a prototype, and > it didn't. Not in their culture. > So I designed a system that worked the same way as their forms. Every > page > matched the standard forms they used, except that information > automatically > infilled, was sent to their billing systems, collated to their work flow > for > follow ups and diarising etc ... But all invisibly. What they 'saw' were > the > forms they had used throughout. Even the validation was fairly soft, and > consisted mainly of highlighting things that were suspect. Annoying > popups > were kept to an absolute minimum, text and codes expanded directly from > typing, and generally the whole thing designed to look and feel as > unobtrusive as possible: nothing to interrupt their work flow. I couldn't > have done that with a character based system because it couldn't have > represented the compexity of some of the forms (try doing an airway bill > or > customs declaration form and you'll see what I mean). > > As a more traditional example, I have a project management system that > I both designed and use. This is based on drill down principles, > allowing me to track projects, modules, scheduled and tasks. Here the > advantage of a GUI > is persistence and workflow: because a GUI allows me to have multiple > windows open modelessly, I can track down from the projects or work lists > into the individual tasks whilst keeping the lists (heirarchically > arranged) > still visible, so I don't have to keep closing down windows or > reselecting: > generally much more efficient. I can also display more, since most of the > time I am interested in viewing information rather than changing it - > and at > the viewing stage I can use smaller fonts to display things that when > amended need larger screen estate. The diary is a case in point: I can > use > colours and smaller fonts to show different entries in a way that a green > screen application wouldn't accommodate. And naturally I keep a document > path, so any documents/project plans/applications or other materials > connected with a task can be opened direc
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Tony, >>Respectfully Brian, I seriously disagree and we owe it to ourselves to get up to date on the cost of development software. As you know I'm a huge Delphi fan and don't resent the cost of that. Until Delphi 7, whose only improvement over Delphi 6 was support for .Net that never materialised in any useable form. I was particularly unimpressed when I learned that the Borland demonstrations at DCOM in London using Delphi with the Compact framework on Pocket PC, were the result of a compiler hack and that this functionality was not available in the product. The whole edition had the feel of a knee-jerk response, and that knocked my faith somewhat: frankly I don't expect that kind of thing from Borland. C++Builer and J#Builder both add significant value to any development, and I don't resent the cost of those. Ditto for Kylix. But C#Builder is a borrowed technology and the cost seems way high for what is essentially a wrapper around a compiler that is otherwise available for free. The cost seems to be set to reflect that of Visual Studio .Net, which offers far more in terms of functionality than the Borland IDE: and it got hammered by the computer press over here for exactly that reason. I'm worried that Borland are getting greedy - snapping up technology companies instead of concentrating on their core skills of providing the best languages (they've gone down that road before and been badly burned) - there is a sense that they are panicking in response to losing their best resource to Microsoft - and pushing out product that is overpriced for the market or not ready. That's not the Borland we know and love, and as a long time Borland supporter, I want Borland to succeed - they have a very loyal customer base and I can't see these tactics doing Borland any favours. BTW you cannot legally use C#Builder personal for any commercial development. Brian 'who wouldn't be without his MSDN universal subscription either' Leach This email was checked on leaving Microgen for viruses, similar malicious code and inappropriate content by MessageLabs SkyScan. DISCLAIMER This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information. In the event of any technical difficulty with this email, please contact the sender or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Microgen Information Management Solutions http://www.microgen.co.uk -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
In a message dated 4/21/2004 10:51:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > And the .NET jvm is free of charge, so no more dollars to microsoft. And > it is installed with every windows update, so every windows user has > already a "good environment" for .NET. More easy for us > than installing > java vm. Hold on now. The .NET jvm is installed with every windows update ? So every windows user already has ... ? Whenever I go to www.windowsupdate.com it keeps asking me if I want to install .NET and saying "...you should only need this if you have an application that needs it..." And realizing that it takes up like 20 hundred thousand billion bytes, I choose to not install it. So doesn't this mean I *don't* have a .NET jvm installed? Or is .NET and .NET jvm different ? Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
I wrote: >... An Enterprise level shop doesn't care >that the software costs over US1000 and probably wouldn't be >using PHP for development. The Borland model is bl**dy expensive. Dangit, I meant to emphasize that "The Borland model NOT is bl**dy expensive." -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Brian Leach wrote: >Of course the relative costs of PHP (free) against Visual >Studio .Net or Borland C# Builder (both bl**dy expensive) >might just be a small factor :-) Respectfully Brian, I seriously disagree and we owe it to ourselves to get up to date on the cost of development software. A personal developer version of C#Builder is Free. A company with a need for the extended versions wil hopefully make a couple hundred dollars during the year to pay for their development software. An Enterprise level shop doesn't care that the software costs over US1000 and probably wouldn't be using PHP for development. The Borland model is bl**dy expensive. For Visual Studio .NET I acquired a legal copy of an MSDN Universal subscription for US1300, the included freebies brought that down to a net of less than $1000. I think that's a very reasonable price to get access to every bit of software I need from MS, including support. Without shopping around someone will pay over $2000, but even that isn't outrageous considering the benefits. Remember, that's a Universal subscription, and there are other packages for a much lower cost. Just for reference, I've really tried to hate MS as much as it's popular to do so, but MS Support is absolutely fantastic, friendly, helpful, and fast. These days my concerns with Microsoft are with cross-platform compatibility and security. The idea that MS software is expensive went out the window a long time ago. >Even though AFAIK the C# compiler itself is still available free. Yes it is, and C# 2.0 is coming out which has a number of nice new features. Also, because C# is an open spec I believe it will be getting more respect as a cross-platform development tool (ala Mono, etc). This is not the case with VB.NET or other .NET/CLR-compliant languages, so any .NET code I write is in C#. You don't need an IDE to use C# any more than you need an IDE for PHP, but if you want one there are free and for-fee versions of IDEs for both. If you want the helpful tools you pay the price to the people who save you time. Tony Technical editor, C#Builder Kick Start, SAMS Publishing Buy it at Amazon or at your local book store! :) Post your C# questions to http://csharp-station.com/ -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
>>Even though AFAIK the C# compiler itself is still available free. Yes, the VB.NET and the C# compiler are absolutely free. There is NOTHING that you can do with Visual Studio.NET that you can't do with the free download and notepad (or other). Actually, there are things you can do with the command line that can't be done in the VS IDE (multiple modules into single dll, I believe). The only thing that the VS IDE does is make you a bit more productive. Regards, Jim -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Just be careful! The reason Sun does not want to open Java (in fact, Java itself is available as open source, so all this crap about "open source-ing Java" is just that - crap) is that it does not want the aim of Java - write once run anywhere - to be subverted. Given that it is on record that this is EXACTLY what MS intended to do when they licenced Java from MS (hence the MS/Sun legal scraps) who can blame Sun for being wary? Java (not necessarily Sun's version) will be available on any platform that people care to put it on. MS have made a point of saying (or at the very least not denying) that .net is intended to work best with Windows and, indeed, parts of it are likely to work ONLY with Windows. So if I develop with Java on an IBM mainframe I have no expectation of getting a nasty surprise from Sun. If I develop with .net, I have every expectation of it failing to work with linux in the (maybe near) future. Cheers, Wol -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christophe Marchal Sent: 21 April 2004 15:52 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based Yes, I agree. But .NET is also an "open" specification, the .NET file format and the jvm are ecma "standardized". And there is already an open .net vm : mono. So using .net does not locked more into microsoft than using sun lock you into sun. And the .NET jvm is free of charge, so no more dollars to microsoft. And it is installed with every windows update, so every windows user has already a "good environment" for .NET. More easy for us than installing java vm. And the last events show us that sun does not want to open Java. So if sun dies, nobody can continue developping java. It was only a kind of joke (why I used a smiley ;-), I don't want to start a war about sun/java versus Microsoft/.NET especially with the last agreement between sun and ms ;-) Just use your prefered tool, I'll be ever productive than with a world-standard that you hate. Christophe Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote: >Java Web Start works reasonably well, and I have used it. But I sure don't >see how you are "locked in" to Sun by using it. The Java libraries will be >perpetuated with or without Sun. For example, IBM develops with Java, and >I'm certain they don't think they are locked into Sun. > >"Locked into Microsoft" implies dollars (forever) while "locked into Java" >doesn't feel like as much of a prison at all. Agree? --dawn > >Dawn M. Wolthuis >Tincat Group, Inc. >www.tincat-group.com > >Take and give some delight today. > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Christophe Marchal >Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 1:03 AM >To: U2 Users Discussion List >Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based > >Well, you have the java choice ;-) >Java and javawebstart do the same thing as explain by James. >Check http://java.sun.com/products/javawebstart/architecture.html > >But you'll still locked into Sun (instead of microsoft) ;-) > >Christophe > > > -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. Please e-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error or telephone ECA International immediately and delete the e-mail from your information system. Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)2 9911 7799, Hong Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 and New York +1 212 582 2333. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
Yes, I agree. But .NET is also an "open" specification, the .NET file format and the jvm are ecma "standardized". And there is already an open .net vm : mono. So using .net does not locked more into microsoft than using sun lock you into sun. And the .NET jvm is free of charge, so no more dollars to microsoft. And it is installed with every windows update, so every windows user has already a "good environment" for .NET. More easy for us than installing java vm. And the last events show us that sun does not want to open Java. So if sun dies, nobody can continue developping java. It was only a kind of joke (why I used a smiley ;-), I don't want to start a war about sun/java versus Microsoft/.NET especially with the last agreement between sun and ms ;-) Just use your prefered tool, I'll be ever productive than with a world-standard that you hate. Christophe Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote: Java Web Start works reasonably well, and I have used it. But I sure don't see how you are "locked in" to Sun by using it. The Java libraries will be perpetuated with or without Sun. For example, IBM develops with Java, and I'm certain they don't think they are locked into Sun. "Locked into Microsoft" implies dollars (forever) while "locked into Java" doesn't feel like as much of a prison at all. Agree? --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christophe Marchal Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 1:03 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based Well, you have the java choice ;-) Java and javawebstart do the same thing as explain by James. Check http://java.sun.com/products/javawebstart/architecture.html But you'll still locked into Sun (instead of microsoft) ;-) Christophe -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote: Java Web Start works reasonably well, and I have used it. But I sure don't see how you are "locked in" to Sun by using it. The Java libraries will be perpetuated with or without Sun. For example, IBM develops with Java, and I'm certain they don't think they are locked into Sun. "Locked into Microsoft" implies dollars (forever) while "locked into Java" doesn't feel like as much of a prison at all. Agree? --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. Only if Sun makes Java so it has special "enhancements" that are solely available on Solaris, a-la J++. David Beahm "In a world without walls or fences, who needs Windows or Gates?" - unknown -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Java Web Start works reasonably well, and I have used it. But I sure don't see how you are "locked in" to Sun by using it. The Java libraries will be perpetuated with or without Sun. For example, IBM develops with Java, and I'm certain they don't think they are locked into Sun. "Locked into Microsoft" implies dollars (forever) while "locked into Java" doesn't feel like as much of a prison at all. Agree? --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christophe Marchal Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 1:03 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based Well, you have the java choice ;-) Java and javawebstart do the same thing as explain by James. Check http://java.sun.com/products/javawebstart/architecture.html But you'll still locked into Sun (instead of microsoft) ;-) Christophe Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote: >And will this next version of .NET run fine on Linux and Mac OS? I don't >keep current enough with MS and I know they keep suggesting they will run on >Linux and MacOS, but I'm not familiar with any projects that will actually >accomplish that. While their .NET efforts do look like they have a lot of >things going right for them, I still don't like locking into Microsoft for >everything. If I knew I could deploy the results of .NET development >efforts on other platforms, I'd be much more interested. --dawn > >Dawn M. Wolthuis >Tincat Group, Inc. >www.tincat-group.com > >Take and give some delight today. > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of James Canale, Jr. >Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 12:31 PM >To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' >Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based > > > >>> So, shockwave is fine, Java >>>Web Start is fine and anything else that could be installed by users >>> >>> >going > > >>>to this web page and "clicking here" and that is maintained something >>> >>> >like > > >>>Adobe pdf readers would be fine. >>> >>> > >In case you haven't seen the next version of .NET yet, Visual Studio 2005 >has a "Click Once" feature that is exactly this. The "zero touch >deployment" or "xcopy" stuff that started with the first release of .NET was >like the first version of Windows, the start of an idea that wasn't really >too far along. The next version improves quite a bit on this beginning. >Actually, you have options to start from a web 'click', install a link to >the desktop/start menu, etc.. It automatically checks/downloads a newer >version (or runs locally if no connection to the server). I'm sure there >are still going to be some issues (dealing with unmanaged code comes to >mind) but, it should work very well with UniObjects.NET (when it gets here). > >Regards, > >Jim > > > > -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
If you load the .Net framework SDK the compiler is there. Micro$oft has also release the C++ compiler as a command line only download too. To use them you just have to figure out all the command strings and such. http://weblogs.asp.net/brianjo/archive/2004/04/17/115335.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=9B3A2CA6-3647-4070-9F41-A333C6B9181D&displaylang=en Don Kibbey Financial Systems Manager Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/21/04 06:45AM >>> >Yes i noticed how poorly C# fared, it seemed to be growing all through 2002 then leveled off at just above 2% all >2003 to the current day. It seems stuck at only 10% of Java/C/C++ popularity which it is supposed to replace. The >ms exec's better be praying this is not the top of the bell curve. Of course the relative costs of PHP (free) against Visual Studio .Net or Borland C# Builder (both bl**dy expensive) might just be a small factor :-) Even though AFAIK the C# compiler itself is still available free. Brian This email was checked on leaving Microgen for viruses, similar malicious code and inappropriate content by MessageLabs SkyScan. DISCLAIMER This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information. In the event of any technical difficulty with this email, please contact the sender or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Microgen Information Management Solutions http://www.microgen.co.uk -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
That's a LITTLE unfair :-) Yes Miguel is a publicist, but the war is fought mainly by clueless lusers who don't understand the real issues :-( KDE is C++ and Free, Gnome is C and Open. There are fundamentally deep issues with regard to all four choices, and the developers mostly respect each others' viewpoints. It's a shame the lusers can't too. Cheers, Wol -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Colquhoun Sent: 21 April 2004 11:46 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based Hello Tony, At 03:56 PM 21/04/2004, Tony Gravagno wrote: >I'm just trying to find the time to get into Mono. I believe it has a >bright future and will be great for all of us wanting cross-platform access >into our MV apps. Maybe also have a look at dotgnu: http://www.gnu.org/projects/dotgnu/ The mono project gets way more publicity, the project leader is renowned for deliberately stirring to promote his projects(...i think he started an open source 100 year war with the gnome-kde stuff). - Robert -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. Please e-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error or telephone ECA International immediately and delete the e-mail from your information system. Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)2 9911 7799, Hong Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 and New York +1 212 582 2333. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Hello Tony, At 03:56 PM 21/04/2004, Tony Gravagno wrote: I'm just trying to find the time to get into Mono. I believe it has a bright future and will be great for all of us wanting cross-platform access into our MV apps. Maybe also have a look at dotgnu: http://www.gnu.org/projects/dotgnu/ The mono project gets way more publicity, the project leader is renowned for deliberately stirring to promote his projects(...i think he started an open source 100 year war with the gnome-kde stuff). - Robert -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
>Yes i noticed how poorly C# fared, it seemed to be growing all through 2002 then leveled off at just above 2% all >2003 to the current day. It seems stuck at only 10% of Java/C/C++ popularity which it is supposed to replace. The >ms exec's better be praying this is not the top of the bell curve. Of course the relative costs of PHP (free) against Visual Studio .Net or Borland C# Builder (both bl**dy expensive) might just be a small factor :-) Even though AFAIK the C# compiler itself is still available free. Brian This email was checked on leaving Microgen for viruses, similar malicious code and inappropriate content by MessageLabs SkyScan. DISCLAIMER This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information. In the event of any technical difficulty with this email, please contact the sender or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Microgen Information Management Solutions http://www.microgen.co.uk -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
At 10:19 PM 20/04/2004, Brian Leach wrote: >>(scary how much php has moved up lately!) Actually I find it reassuring to know that PHP is still more popular than C# Yes i noticed how poorly C# fared, it seemed to be growing all through 2002 then leveled off at just above 2% all 2003 to the current day. It seems stuck at only 10% of Java/C/C++ popularity which it is supposed to replace. The ms exec's better be praying this is not the top of the bell curve. Python also disappointed versus perl, i would have thought it would have been much more competitive. - Robert -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
Well, you have the java choice ;-) Java and javawebstart do the same thing as explain by James. Check http://java.sun.com/products/javawebstart/architecture.html But you'll still locked into Sun (instead of microsoft) ;-) Christophe Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote: And will this next version of .NET run fine on Linux and Mac OS? I don't keep current enough with MS and I know they keep suggesting they will run on Linux and MacOS, but I'm not familiar with any projects that will actually accomplish that. While their .NET efforts do look like they have a lot of things going right for them, I still don't like locking into Microsoft for everything. If I knew I could deploy the results of .NET development efforts on other platforms, I'd be much more interested. --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Canale, Jr. Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 12:31 PM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based So, shockwave is fine, Java Web Start is fine and anything else that could be installed by users going to this web page and "clicking here" and that is maintained something like Adobe pdf readers would be fine. In case you haven't seen the next version of .NET yet, Visual Studio 2005 has a "Click Once" feature that is exactly this. The "zero touch deployment" or "xcopy" stuff that started with the first release of .NET was like the first version of Windows, the start of an idea that wasn't really too far along. The next version improves quite a bit on this beginning. Actually, you have options to start from a web 'click', install a link to the desktop/start menu, etc.. It automatically checks/downloads a newer version (or runs locally if no connection to the server). I'm sure there are still going to be some issues (dealing with unmanaged code comes to mind) but, it should work very well with UniObjects.NET (when it gets here). Regards, Jim -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
chris wrote: >mono is an C# .net port for linux. It supposed to run C# exes as >is (from a windows box) I haven't tired it yet. I still working on >my "hello world" app in C# so I'm not ready to try porting anything :) I'm just trying to find the time to get into Mono. I believe it has a bright future and will be great for all of us wanting cross-platform access into our MV apps. Tony Technical editor, C#Builder Kick Start, SAMS Publishing Buy it at Amazon or at your local book store! :) Post your C# questions to http://csharp-station.com/ >Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote: >>And will this next version of .NET run fine on Linux and Mac OS? I >>don't keep current enough with MS and I know they keep >suggesting they >>will run on Linux and MacOS, but I'm not familiar with any projects >>that will actually accomplish that. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Brian Leach wrote: >The data based stuff is pretty recent in terms of Flash, and I >guess most of the Flash community hasn't caught onto it yet - >after all, it is primarily a tool for content designers (and >for some pretty good games too) so most of the people using it >are not database minded. Brian, the Flash and Shockwave people have been working with databases for a few years now, though you're right that by and large most of those developers don't "get" the value of real databases yet. As Craig Bennett says "All the graphic designers in the audience just stared ..." They're approaching it from an artistic view and not an applications view. They see a database as a place to put data, like for game scores, but not as an integral part of an application the way we MV people see it. For years I've seen this gap in perception as being an opportunity for MV people to refit their apps with user-friendly UI's, but MV people don't "get" that either. The Macromedia-type web developers are very interested in data connectivity for zero-install or low-footprint clients. I did a presentation for the Orange County Multimedia Association a couple years ago (when I was Product Manager at Raining Data) which included discussion of the MV model, comparisons with ODBC, using Omnis Studio for cross-platform development and deployment, and FlashCONNECT as a data conduit from "mainstream" graphical tools. The focus was on data connectivity and trying to get them to "get it", not any one product or technology. See the following link for demos I wrote to get from various clients (including Shockwave/Flash) into D3. (That was over 4 years ago now - whoe!) The same techniques can be used with different tools and back-end DBMS environments, so don't let the FlashCONNECT thing scare you. http://flashconnect.rainingdata.com/wuc2000/fcdemos/index.html Note that I did the Shockwave interface as an installable thick-client, though it could have just as easily have been a thin-client browser plug-in. In hind site I probably should have made it thin but my focus was on demonstrating the variety of technologies - making everything a browser interface would make it easier for people to get eye candy but would have limited the scope of the real purpose of the demo. If someone would like to use Macromedia or Adobe GUI products with U2 or other MV applications, I'd enjoy providing the communications interfaces for such a project. >It wouldn't be a simple or cheap solution, particularly at >this stage - writing Flash dialogs is hard work - until >someone does something to capitalize on it. There are already >plenty of (considerably cheaper) tools that produce flash >content without having to use Flash as the actual designer, so >it may only be a question of time before someone with the >money and time realises the potential there and comes up with >a suitable tool. Real Flash work is easier than it used to be and much more feature-rich. As indicated above I think the issue is getting people to see the value in the UI as well as the tools that can drive it. Most people don't understand Flash and think of it as a toy rather than as a tool - just like people look down on CUI business software. Anyone who wants a browser-based GUI, especially cross-platform, should seriously look at Flash and Shockwave, in addition to Java. The big question is "who is your audience?" If the audience is Joe internet user then Flash may be better. If your application is more extranet-oriented then I'd tend toward Java, depending on the features required. Tony -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Brian Leach wrote: >> Or if you want browser based cross platform - is anyone on the list >> using Macromedia flash to talk to U2 through web services? Will wrote: >Aren't you missing something there? Or can "web services" >speak directly to a U2 database? And if so ... how? For info on Web Services talking to your U2 system, please see my series of articles on the topic for Spectrum Magazine: http://Nebula-RnD.com/spectrum/ We'll be posting article 3 in a couple days which specifically mentions tools for U2. Article 4 for the May/June issue is going to press now with examples of Web Services deployed for MV apps and in the mainstream world. For info on getting from Flash (Shockwave) to MV, see my other post for this thread that I'm posting at the same time as this one. Tony -Everything connects to MV- -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
Goo'day, Craig At 16:13 20/04/04, you wrote: >> just ask WordPerfect and Lotus (or DOS devotees or dumb terminal >>vendors or Eudora users or Netscape shareholders or vb6 developers). > >And, just what's wrong with these things?They're still available. And >work And are used. Not a thing Bruce I wasn't suggesting there was. But there was a time when Lotus and Wordperfect where the behemoths which Excel and Word struggled to catch. Really can't see anything on the horizon yet that's going to have the same effect I was hoping Ross would recognise the possiblity that Windows might go the same way despite current market domination. You (and most of the rest of us) wish! Craig -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 7.0.230 / Virus Database: 262.9.0 - Release Date: 19/04/04 Regards, Bruce Nichol Talon Computer Services ALBURYNSW 2640 Australia Tel: +61 (0)411149636 Fax: +61 (0)260232119 If it ain't broke, fix it till it is! -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 7.0.230 / Virus Database: 262.9.2 - Release Date: 20/04/04 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Ap0logies if I did mis-type - should have been CLR as others have pointed out, for the Common Language Runtime ... same concept as Java & "our" Basic ... now if IBM were to introduce a compiler for CLR ? Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage – an Evolution in Software Development >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Craig Bennett >Sent: Wednesday, 21 April 2004 9:20 AM >To: U2 Users Discussion List >Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based > >Robert, > >>> >Perhaps you need to look at XAML/Avalon, which will be part of Windows >>>"Longhorn" by the time it >BYTES, the various opensource CLT >projects >>>should be up & away, and you may have your path. >> >>Sorry for the ignorance, but what is CLT? > >I don't know either, you'd have to ask Ross. > > >Craig > >-- >u2-users mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.661 / Virus Database: 424 - Release Date: 19/04/2004 > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.661 / Virus Database: 424 - Release Date: 19/04/2004 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
Robert, >To be honest i spend ages on the web and have not noticed any data oriented >stuff done in flash, all the flash stuff i have seen has been graphic >oriented...do macromedia have any references? I went to a Macromedia conference 12 months ago where they demonstrated a flash client passing XML data back and forth with Cold Fusion. There example application was airline reservations. All the graphic designers in the audience just stared Craig -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
Robert, >> >Perhaps you need to look at XAML/Avalon, which will be part of Windows >>"Longhorn" by the time it >BYTES, the various opensource CLT projects >>should be up & away, and you may have your path. > >Sorry for the ignorance, but what is CLT? I don't know either, you'd have to ask Ross. Craig -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
>Any objection to me chasing that small 95% portion of the market in the meantime ? I figure I've been in the >"winning 5%" end of the niche for too long :-) After you old chap. No really, I insist. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Wait do you mean the Windoze GUI that MS shamelessly stole from > Macintosh ? Presume you meant to say "that Apple shamelessly stole from Xerox" - n'es pas? ** This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of addressed recipient(s). If you have received this email in error please notify the Spotless IS Support Centre (61 3 9269 7555) immediately who will advise further action. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. ** -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Well actualy, it was first "stolen" by Apple from Xerox. They first codified the WIMP interface for the Xerox Star system. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 11:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based In a message dated 4/20/2004 12:43:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Also, IMHO the primary usefulness of "a GUI" (lets face it folks, we're > talking about the Microsoft Windows GUI) is the fact that > so many people > already know how to use it. Wait do you mean the Windoze GUI that MS shamelessly stole from Macintosh ? Ok then Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
In a message dated 4/20/2004 12:43:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Also, IMHO the primary usefulness of "a GUI" (lets face it folks, we're > talking about the Microsoft Windows GUI) is the fact that > so many people > already know how to use it. Wait do you mean the Windoze GUI that MS shamelessly stole from Macintosh ? Ok then Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
In a message dated 4/20/2004 12:34:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I'll accept that restatement, Will. My intent was not that there was no > footprint on the client, but that the user could go to a URL and would be > able to launch what they need to from there. So, shockwave is fine, Java > Web Start is fine and anything else that could be installed by users going > to this web page and "clicking here" and that is maintained > something like > Adobe pdf readers would be fine. "Anything else that could be installed..." covers a lot. So that would cover things like new fonts, flash, MrSid and other viewer plugins, RealAudio and other sound plugins, etc. So it seems you're just advocating basically a browser interface, and the caveat that anything that a programmer might realistically think a user doesn't have installed should have a link to how to install it. Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Computer Languages gripe was Re: GUI as nice as character-based
In a message dated 4/20/2004 8:19:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >>(scary how much php has moved up lately!) > > Actually I find it reassuring to know that PHP is still > more popular than C# > > Brian Wasn't C# writen by a programmer who could only type 10 words a minute? Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
In a message dated 4/20/2004 7:21:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Or if you want browser based cross platform - is anyone on the list using > Macromedia flash to talk to U2 through web services? > > Brian Aren't you missing something there? Or can "web services" speak directly to a U2 database? And if so ... how? Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
>> And will this next version of .NET run fine on Linux and Mac OS? Well, that is the question just about everyone would like answered. It seems that Microsoft is well aware of several projects (mono being the most popular) and is monitoring those developments at this point. I can't tell if they are assisting or resisting what is going on at this point, but, eventually, I think it WILL happen in some way. Regards, Jim -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Net will run on Linux the day that a very large Linux shop tells Micro$oft they need that functionality to convert over to windoze That said, I've been using c# and .Net for a couple of years now and I find it to be pretty damn good. If you have a captive audience that just happens to run windoze and already has the .Net runtime installed, then it really is a simple matter of doing an xcopy of your app down to the workstation. Don Kibbey Financial Systems Manager Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/20/04 01:55PM >>> And will this next version of .NET run fine on Linux and Mac OS? I don't keep current enough with MS and I know they keep suggesting they will run on Linux and MacOS, but I'm not familiar with any projects that will actually accomplish that. While their .NET efforts do look like they have a lot of things going right for them, I still don't like locking into Microsoft for everything. If I knew I could deploy the results of .NET development efforts on other platforms, I'd be much more interested. --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Canale, Jr. Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 12:31 PM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based >> So, shockwave is fine, Java >> Web Start is fine and anything else that could be installed by users going >> to this web page and "clicking here" and that is maintained something like >> Adobe pdf readers would be fine. In case you haven't seen the next version of .NET yet, Visual Studio 2005 has a "Click Once" feature that is exactly this. The "zero touch deployment" or "xcopy" stuff that started with the first release of .NET was like the first version of Windows, the start of an idea that wasn't really too far along. The next version improves quite a bit on this beginning. Actually, you have options to start from a web 'click', install a link to the desktop/start menu, etc.. It automatically checks/downloads a newer version (or runs locally if no connection to the server). I'm sure there are still going to be some issues (dealing with unmanaged code comes to mind) but, it should work very well with UniObjects.NET (when it gets here). Regards, Jim -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
mono is an C# .net port for linux. It supposed to run C# exes as is (from a windows box) I haven't tired it yet. I still working on my "hello world" app in C# so I'm not ready to try porting anything :) Chris Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote: And will this next version of .NET run fine on Linux and Mac OS? I don't keep current enough with MS and I know they keep suggesting they will run on Linux and MacOS, but I'm not familiar with any projects that will actually accomplish that. While their .NET efforts do look like they have a lot of things going right for them, I still don't like locking into Microsoft for everything. If I knew I could deploy the results of .NET development efforts on other platforms, I'd be much more interested. --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
And will this next version of .NET run fine on Linux and Mac OS? I don't keep current enough with MS and I know they keep suggesting they will run on Linux and MacOS, but I'm not familiar with any projects that will actually accomplish that. While their .NET efforts do look like they have a lot of things going right for them, I still don't like locking into Microsoft for everything. If I knew I could deploy the results of .NET development efforts on other platforms, I'd be much more interested. --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Canale, Jr. Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 12:31 PM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based >> So, shockwave is fine, Java >> Web Start is fine and anything else that could be installed by users going >> to this web page and "clicking here" and that is maintained something like >> Adobe pdf readers would be fine. In case you haven't seen the next version of .NET yet, Visual Studio 2005 has a "Click Once" feature that is exactly this. The "zero touch deployment" or "xcopy" stuff that started with the first release of .NET was like the first version of Windows, the start of an idea that wasn't really too far along. The next version improves quite a bit on this beginning. Actually, you have options to start from a web 'click', install a link to the desktop/start menu, etc.. It automatically checks/downloads a newer version (or runs locally if no connection to the server). I'm sure there are still going to be some issues (dealing with unmanaged code comes to mind) but, it should work very well with UniObjects.NET (when it gets here). Regards, Jim -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Comments below. --dawn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Schasny Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 11:44 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based I disagree with a couple of points. For one, there is no reason that a character based app can not be written to validate data inputs just as efficiently as a GUI. Users can be forced to choose from a list of pre authorized values by a number of means. An assigned function key which brings up a box of options which can be highlighted and selected for example. (dawn) Sure, Jeff, you CAN do that. I think I can still find that Mona Lisa printed on a Centronics dot matrix printer too. So, you can simulate a graphical environment with character-based windows and such but users are hip to the difference. Also, IMHO the primary usefulness of "a GUI" (lets face it folks, we're talking about the Microsoft Windows GUI) is the fact that so many people already know how to use it. Heck, even my technophobic 75 year old mother knows that "Files" is on the left side of the menu bar and "Help" is on the right. Employers can bring people in to an organization and be reasonably sure that they will be able to do some useful work on a computer system quickly because the "look and feel" of their GUI is a soft, cuddly, familiar face to just about everyone. (dawn) Agreed. Its not more efficient. It requires more resources. It increases the overall complexity of the application and therefore increases the probability of failures. (dawn) Agreed. Unfortunately, the bottom line is that users like it. Since we write software for users we need to use the GUI. (dawn) yup. I tried to get in touch with the future to see whether we could skip that GUI thing and go right to the WCI (way-cool interface) of the future. But it's not like relational databases & SQL where we should be able to just bypass that and jump to something better. Smiles. --dawn -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
>> So, shockwave is fine, Java >> Web Start is fine and anything else that could be installed by users going >> to this web page and "clicking here" and that is maintained something like >> Adobe pdf readers would be fine. In case you haven't seen the next version of .NET yet, Visual Studio 2005 has a "Click Once" feature that is exactly this. The "zero touch deployment" or "xcopy" stuff that started with the first release of .NET was like the first version of Windows, the start of an idea that wasn't really too far along. The next version improves quite a bit on this beginning. Actually, you have options to start from a web 'click', install a link to the desktop/start menu, etc.. It automatically checks/downloads a newer version (or runs locally if no connection to the server). I'm sure there are still going to be some issues (dealing with unmanaged code comes to mind) but, it should work very well with UniObjects.NET (when it gets here). Regards, Jim -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
I disagree with a couple of points. For one, there is no reason that a character based app can not be written to validate data inputs just as efficiently as a GUI. Users can be forced to choose from a list of pre authorized values by a number of means. An assigned function key which brings up a box of options which can be highlighted and selected for example. Also, IMHO the primary usefulness of "a GUI" (lets face it folks, we're talking about the Microsoft Windows GUI) is the fact that so many people already know how to use it. Heck, even my technophobic 75 year old mother knows that "Files" is on the left side of the menu bar and "Help" is on the right. Employers can bring people in to an organization and be reasonably sure that they will be able to do some useful work on a computer system quickly because the "look and feel" of their GUI is a soft, cuddly, familiar face to just about everyone. Its not more efficient. It requires more resources. It increases the overall complexity of the application and therefore increases the probability of failures. Unfortunately, the bottom line is that users like it. Since we write software for users we need to use the GUI. -Original Message- From: Dawn M. Wolthuis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 9:19 AM Excellent point -- that is also my main issue with terminal emulations that look pretty. A GUI interface does more than look pretty -- it helps prohibit any invalid data from being entered. There are much fewer "data entry fields" in favor of point and click on drop downs and such. Of course, the point and click slows folks down. Software developers of packaged software have the issue of needing to make all of the data entry approaches look way cool and yet ensure that in those cases where there is still a need for fast data entry, the users will not reject the software. The primary need for GUI's that are clicky-clicky is handled well enough with a variety of tools and such applications can often function just fine within a web browser (using jsp or asp for example). It is always harder to add in new stuff than the remove the old and I'd like to see something that will let us remove any need for character-based, terminal emulation software from our production environments, without losing their great features that have kept us using them these many years. Cheers. --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Excellent! I just took at look at wxwidgets and will look into it further. I also like your app browser concept (but remembered not to include the entire original post in my response this time -- sorry I forget that on occasion) and I actually use something that could grow into that -- a Jini services browser (see www.jini.org or www.incax.com) --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Bennett Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 8:32 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based Dawn, how blue sky are we talking? I am hugely impressed with wxWidgets (http://www.wxwidgets.org) a C++ GUI framework for developing applications on Windows, X, Mac, OS/2. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
I'll accept that restatement, Will. My intent was not that there was no footprint on the client, but that the user could go to a URL and would be able to launch what they need to from there. So, shockwave is fine, Java Web Start is fine and anything else that could be installed by users going to this web page and "clicking here" and that is maintained something like Adobe pdf readers would be fine. Thanks for clarifying. --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 10:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based In a message dated 4/19/2004 6:36:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > This does violate your rule about zero install, but I can't think of a real > zero install technology ... once you consider web browser dependencies, java > dependencies, flash player dependencies, citrix dependencies, terminal > emulation dependencies etc there is always *something* you need to have or > fiddle with on the client (otherwise we'd all be shipping PCs with no O/S > installed). > > > Craig You can't really have a zero client footprint. I'd rephrase Dawn's statement to say that perhaps you are using client software that "the average person would ALREADY have installed" such as a browser, a jpg viewer, a mp3 player, etc. Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Excellent point -- that is also my main issue with terminal emulations that look pretty. A GUI interface does more than look pretty -- it helps prohibit any invalid data from being entered. There are much fewer "data entry fields" in favor of point and click on drop downs and such. Of course, the point and click slows folks down. Software developers of packaged software have the issue of needing to make all of the data entry approaches look way cool and yet ensure that in those cases where there is still a need for fast data entry, the users will not reject the software. The primary need for GUI's that are clicky-clicky is handled well enough with a variety of tools and such applications can often function just fine within a web browser (using jsp or asp for example). It is always harder to add in new stuff than the remove the old and I'd like to see something that will let us remove any need for character-based, terminal emulation software from our production environments, without losing their great features that have kept us using them these many years. Cheers. --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Leach Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 5:03 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based To go back to Dawn's original post - Dawn, I've been writing GUI applications for UniVerse for about 15 years now. Some have worked, some have - well - been learning experiences. You shouldn't really compare GUI and character based. Why? Because then you inevitably start to think of the GUI in character based terms - the arrangement of controls on a form, or the addition of some buttons. That's my main beef with 'intelligent' terminals - they obscure the real picture. GUI is not about what you put on the screen. It's about the flow of information, and how that flow best suits the application in question. Data entry is part of that flow, but only part: character based is good for some data entry and for administration, but a good application is also about navigation, culture and the ease of finding information again. Here are two very different examples: I did a freight forwarding package for a company that previously was entirely paper based. They took a - let's say "flexible" - approach to rules, validations, pricing, descriptions etc - and wanted to keep that. Providing a traditional system, with a nailed down design and entry screens just wouldn't work for them. In fact I tried that first as a prototype, and it didn't. Not in their culture. So I designed a system that worked the same way as their forms. Every page matched the standard forms they used, except that information automatically infilled, was sent to their billing systems, collated to their work flow for follow ups and diarising etc ... But all invisibly. What they 'saw' were the forms they had used throughout. Even the validation was fairly soft, and consisted mainly of highlighting things that were suspect. Annoying popups were kept to an absolute minimum, text and codes expanded directly from typing, and generally the whole thing designed to look and feel as unobtrusive as possible: nothing to interrupt their work flow. I couldn't have done that with a character based system because it couldn't have represented the compexity of some of the forms (try doing an airway bill or customs declaration form and you'll see what I mean). As a more traditional example, I have a project management system that I both designed and use. This is based on drill down principles, allowing me to track projects, modules, scheduled and tasks. Here the advantage of a GUI is persistence and workflow: because a GUI allows me to have multiple windows open modelessly, I can track down from the projects or work lists into the individual tasks whilst keeping the lists (heirarchically arranged) still visible, so I don't have to keep closing down windows or reselecting: generally much more efficient. I can also display more, since most of the time I am interested in viewing information rather than changing it - and at the viewing stage I can use smaller fonts to display things that when amended need larger screen estate. The diary is a case in point: I can use colours and smaller fonts to show different entries in a way that a green screen application wouldn't accommodate. And naturally I keep a document path, so any documents/project plans/applications or other materials connected with a task can be opened directly on my desktop. I have seen good GUIs: ones that improve process and work flow and make life genuinely easier. I have seen bad GUIs that interrupt work flow, slow people down (bl**dy mice and message boxes). Good GUI works. Bad GUI is bad bad ba
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
No, 'Thin client' by most definitions I've seen would imply 'no need to install any additional software' examples of 2 'thin' client implementations would be Citrix, and a browser based application. A "fat client" requires 'lots of stuff' - exe's, jar's etc - to be shipped to the client Contrast this to Citrix (where the only thing transmitted to the client is screen update images, as the "code" actually executes on the Citrix box) or Browser (a relatively small "page" is sent) Also see maybe http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/t/thin_client.html Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage - an Evolution in Software Development >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Mark Johnson >Sent: Wednesday, 21 April 2004 12:18 AM >To: U2 Users Discussion List >Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based > >Isn't that what thin clients are for? To hold the app on the client end and >only convey data. >- Original Message - >From: "Schalk van Zyl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 6:51 AM >Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based > > >> Dawn and all, >> >> Another aspect of GUI, which we sure have to consider, is data >> communication lines. >> Our operation is spread over 1000 kilometres, and sending GUI screens >back >> and forth will certainly clog our lines. Except when you make use of >local >> intelligence. The volume of data sent to paint a GUI screen must >certainly >> be a factor of 50 more than with CUI. (?) >> >> Schalk >> >> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:02:31 +0100, Brian Leach >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > To go back to Dawn's original post - >> > >> > Dawn, >> > >> > I've been writing GUI applications for UniVerse for about 15 years now. >> > Some >> > have worked, some have - well - been learning experiences. >> > >> > You shouldn't really compare GUI and character based. Why? Because then >> > you >> > inevitably start to think of the GUI in character based terms - the >> > arrangement of controls on a form, or the addition of some buttons. >> > That's >> > my main beef with 'intelligent' terminals - they obscure the real >> > picture. >> > >> > GUI is not about what you put on the screen. It's about the flow of >> > information, and how that flow best suits the application in question. >> > Data >> > entry is part of that flow, but only part: character based is good for >> > some >> > data entry and for administration, but a good application is also about >> > navigation, culture and the ease of finding information again. >> > >> > Here are two very different examples: >> > >> > I did a freight forwarding package for a company that previously was >> > entirely paper based. They took a - let's say "flexible" - approach to >> > rules, validations, pricing, descriptions etc - and wanted to keep >that. >> > Providing a traditional system, with a nailed down design and entry >> > screens >> > just wouldn't work for them. In fact I tried that first as a prototype, >> > and >> > it didn't. Not in their culture. >> > So I designed a system that worked the same way as their forms. Every >> > page >> > matched the standard forms they used, except that information >> > automatically >> > infilled, was sent to their billing systems, collated to their work >flow >> > for >> > follow ups and diarising etc ... But all invisibly. What they 'saw' >were >> > the >> > forms they had used throughout. Even the validation was fairly soft, >and >> > consisted mainly of highlighting things that were suspect. Annoying >> > popups >> > were kept to an absolute minimum, text and codes expanded directly from >> > typing, and generally the whole thing designed to look and feel as >> > unobtrusive as possible: nothing to interrupt their work flow. I >couldn't >> > have done that with a character based system because it couldn't have >> > represented the compexity of some of the forms (try doing an airway >bill >> > or >> > customs declaration form and you'll see what I mean). >> > >> > As a more traditional example, I have a project management system th
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Have you ever tried running Citrix or X over a WAN? Apparently it is NOT to be recommended :-) The thing is, what do you mean by "only data". The thinnest possible clients are Xterms or WinTerms, for which "only data" means "everything needed to repaint the screen". That CAN be a lot! Cheers, Wol -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Johnson Sent: 20 April 2004 15:18 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based Isn't that what thin clients are for? To hold the app on the client end and only convey data. - Original Message - From: "Schalk van Zyl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 6:51 AM Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based > Dawn and all, > > Another aspect of GUI, which we sure have to consider, is data > communication lines. > Our operation is spread over 1000 kilometres, and sending GUI screens back > and forth will certainly clog our lines. Except when you make use of local > intelligence. The volume of data sent to paint a GUI screen must certainly > be a factor of 50 more than with CUI. (?) > > Schalk > > On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:02:31 +0100, Brian Leach > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > To go back to Dawn's original post - > > > > Dawn, > > > > I've been writing GUI applications for UniVerse for about 15 years now. > > Some > > have worked, some have - well - been learning experiences. > > > > You shouldn't really compare GUI and character based. Why? Because then > > you > > inevitably start to think of the GUI in character based terms - the > > arrangement of controls on a form, or the addition of some buttons. > > That's > > my main beef with 'intelligent' terminals - they obscure the real > > picture. > > > > GUI is not about what you put on the screen. It's about the flow of > > information, and how that flow best suits the application in question. > > Data > > entry is part of that flow, but only part: character based is good for > > some > > data entry and for administration, but a good application is also about > > navigation, culture and the ease of finding information again. > > > > Here are two very different examples: > > > > I did a freight forwarding package for a company that previously was > > entirely paper based. They took a - let's say "flexible" - approach to > > rules, validations, pricing, descriptions etc - and wanted to keep that. > > Providing a traditional system, with a nailed down design and entry > > screens > > just wouldn't work for them. In fact I tried that first as a prototype, > > and > > it didn't. Not in their culture. > > So I designed a system that worked the same way as their forms. Every > > page > > matched the standard forms they used, except that information > > automatically > > infilled, was sent to their billing systems, collated to their work flow > > for > > follow ups and diarising etc ... But all invisibly. What they 'saw' were > > the > > forms they had used throughout. Even the validation was fairly soft, and > > consisted mainly of highlighting things that were suspect. Annoying > > popups > > were kept to an absolute minimum, text and codes expanded directly from > > typing, and generally the whole thing designed to look and feel as > > unobtrusive as possible: nothing to interrupt their work flow. I couldn't > > have done that with a character based system because it couldn't have > > represented the compexity of some of the forms (try doing an airway bill > > or > > customs declaration form and you'll see what I mean). > > > > As a more traditional example, I have a project management system that I > > both designed and use. This is based on drill down principles, allowing > > me > > to track projects, modules, scheduled and tasks. Here the advantage of a > > GUI > > is persistence and workflow: because a GUI allows me to have multiple > > windows open modelessly, I can track down from the projects or work lists > > into the individual tasks whilst keeping the lists (heirarchically > > arranged) > > still visible, so I don't have to keep closing down windows or > > reselecting: > > generally much more efficient. I can also display more, since most of the > > time I am interested in viewing information rather than changing it - > > and at > > the viewing stage
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
Isn't that what thin clients are for? To hold the app on the client end and only convey data. - Original Message - From: "Schalk van Zyl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 6:51 AM Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based > Dawn and all, > > Another aspect of GUI, which we sure have to consider, is data > communication lines. > Our operation is spread over 1000 kilometres, and sending GUI screens back > and forth will certainly clog our lines. Except when you make use of local > intelligence. The volume of data sent to paint a GUI screen must certainly > be a factor of 50 more than with CUI. (?) > > Schalk > > On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:02:31 +0100, Brian Leach > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > To go back to Dawn's original post - > > > > Dawn, > > > > I've been writing GUI applications for UniVerse for about 15 years now. > > Some > > have worked, some have - well - been learning experiences. > > > > You shouldn't really compare GUI and character based. Why? Because then > > you > > inevitably start to think of the GUI in character based terms - the > > arrangement of controls on a form, or the addition of some buttons. > > That's > > my main beef with 'intelligent' terminals - they obscure the real > > picture. > > > > GUI is not about what you put on the screen. It's about the flow of > > information, and how that flow best suits the application in question. > > Data > > entry is part of that flow, but only part: character based is good for > > some > > data entry and for administration, but a good application is also about > > navigation, culture and the ease of finding information again. > > > > Here are two very different examples: > > > > I did a freight forwarding package for a company that previously was > > entirely paper based. They took a - let's say "flexible" - approach to > > rules, validations, pricing, descriptions etc - and wanted to keep that. > > Providing a traditional system, with a nailed down design and entry > > screens > > just wouldn't work for them. In fact I tried that first as a prototype, > > and > > it didn't. Not in their culture. > > So I designed a system that worked the same way as their forms. Every > > page > > matched the standard forms they used, except that information > > automatically > > infilled, was sent to their billing systems, collated to their work flow > > for > > follow ups and diarising etc ... But all invisibly. What they 'saw' were > > the > > forms they had used throughout. Even the validation was fairly soft, and > > consisted mainly of highlighting things that were suspect. Annoying > > popups > > were kept to an absolute minimum, text and codes expanded directly from > > typing, and generally the whole thing designed to look and feel as > > unobtrusive as possible: nothing to interrupt their work flow. I couldn't > > have done that with a character based system because it couldn't have > > represented the compexity of some of the forms (try doing an airway bill > > or > > customs declaration form and you'll see what I mean). > > > > As a more traditional example, I have a project management system that I > > both designed and use. This is based on drill down principles, allowing > > me > > to track projects, modules, scheduled and tasks. Here the advantage of a > > GUI > > is persistence and workflow: because a GUI allows me to have multiple > > windows open modelessly, I can track down from the projects or work lists > > into the individual tasks whilst keeping the lists (heirarchically > > arranged) > > still visible, so I don't have to keep closing down windows or > > reselecting: > > generally much more efficient. I can also display more, since most of the > > time I am interested in viewing information rather than changing it - > > and at > > the viewing stage I can use smaller fonts to display things that when > > amended need larger screen estate. The diary is a case in point: I can > > use > > colours and smaller fonts to show different entries in a way that a green > > screen application wouldn't accommodate. And naturally I keep a document > > path, so any documents/project plans/applications or other materials > > connected with a task can be opened directly on my desktop. > > > > I have seen good GUIs: ones that improve process and work
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
>>(scary how much php has moved up lately!) Actually I find it reassuring to know that PHP is still more popular than C# Brian This email was checked on leaving Microgen for viruses, similar malicious code and inappropriate content by MessageLabs SkyScan. DISCLAIMER This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information. In the event of any technical difficulty with this email, please contact the sender or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Microgen Information Management Solutions http://www.microgen.co.uk -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Robert, The data based stuff is pretty recent in terms of Flash, and I guess most of the Flash community hasn't caught onto it yet - after all, it is primarily a tool for content designers (and for some pretty good games too) so most of the people using it are not database minded. But Macromedia are making a play for this market, and it might be a good thing to keep an eye on: if it works out you would get the level of interactivity that is sorely lacking in 'traditional' web applications, without having to reinvent your own plugin or client or java app. Flash is pretty ubiquitous, and has public acceptance, amongst communities and sites that won't allow users to run java apps or other third party activex in their browsers. It wouldn't be a simple or cheap solution, particularly at this stage - writing Flash dialogs is hard work - until someone does something to capitalize on it. There are already plenty of (considerably cheaper) tools that produce flash content without having to use Flash as the actual designer, so it may only be a question of time before someone with the money and time realises the potential there and comes up with a suitable tool. Brian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Colquhoun Sent: 20 April 2004 12:56 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based Hello Brian, At 09:21 PM 20/04/2004, Brian Leach wrote: > >>I was hoping Ross would recognise the possiblity that Windows might > >>go the >same way despite current market domination. > >So write your clients in Delphi - Continuing the series of google links, if you are interested in the relative popularity of various languages have a look here: http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe_index/tekst.htm (scary how much php has moved up lately!) Or if you want browser based cross platform - is anyone on the list using >Macromedia flash to talk to U2 through web services? I haven't had the >chance to experiment with that yet :-( but AFAIK flash is available as >a plug in on Windows, Linux and Mac and it should be possible to do >some pretty good interactive stuff using that combination ... To be honest i spend ages on the web and have not noticed any data oriented stuff done in flash, all the flash stuff i have seen has been graphic oriented...do macromedia have any references? - Robert -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users This email was checked by MessageLabs SkyScan before entering Microgen. This email was checked on leaving Microgen for viruses, similar malicious code and inappropriate content by MessageLabs SkyScan. DISCLAIMER This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information. In the event of any technical difficulty with this email, please contact the sender or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Microgen Information Management Solutions http://www.microgen.co.uk -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Hello Brian, At 09:21 PM 20/04/2004, Brian Leach wrote: >>I was hoping Ross would recognise the possiblity that Windows might go the same way despite current market domination. So write your clients in Delphi - Continuing the series of google links, if you are interested in the relative popularity of various languages have a look here: http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe_index/tekst.htm (scary how much php has moved up lately!) Or if you want browser based cross platform - is anyone on the list using Macromedia flash to talk to U2 through web services? I haven't had the chance to experiment with that yet :-( but AFAIK flash is available as a plug in on Windows, Linux and Mac and it should be possible to do some pretty good interactive stuff using that combination ... To be honest i spend ages on the web and have not noticed any data oriented stuff done in flash, all the flash stuff i have seen has been graphic oriented...do macromedia have any references? - Robert -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
"and sending GUI screens back and forth will certainly clog our lines" how/why would you send gui screens back and forth ? are you talking about system builder ? This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Depends on How/What/Where the GUI takes place - if you did GUI via, say, VB or Java, the application could be local on the workstation - transmission time could be next to nothing for the actual GUI - depends a LOT on the overall architecture employed If you were using, say, HTML via a web server, 1st time hit could be 50+ times greater as you suggest ON YOUR FIRST VISIT --> with caching, 2nd & subsequent could be just a cache check, which would easily be on a par (or less) that character mode. If you were doing "thin client" via Citrix/TerminalServer, then you have a constant "chatter level" of 1-5Kb/sec, even if you are doing nothing! Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage - an Evolution in Software Development >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Schalk van Zyl >Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 8:52 PM >To: U2 Users Discussion List >Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based > >Dawn and all, > >Another aspect of GUI, which we sure have to consider, is data >communication lines. >Our operation is spread over 1000 kilometres, and sending GUI screens back >and forth will certainly clog our lines. Except when you make use of local >intelligence. The volume of data sent to paint a GUI screen must certainly >be a factor of 50 more than with CUI. (?) > >Schalk > >On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:02:31 +0100, Brian Leach ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> To go back to Dawn's original post - >> >> Dawn, >> >> I've been writing GUI applications for UniVerse for about 15 years now. >> Some >> have worked, some have - well - been learning experiences. >> >> You shouldn't really compare GUI and character based. Why? Because then >> you >> inevitably start to think of the GUI in character based terms - the >> arrangement of controls on a form, or the addition of some buttons. >> That's >> my main beef with 'intelligent' terminals - they obscure the real >> picture. >> >> GUI is not about what you put on the screen. It's about the flow of >> information, and how that flow best suits the application in question. >> Data >> entry is part of that flow, but only part: character based is good for >> some >> data entry and for administration, but a good application is also about >> navigation, culture and the ease of finding information again. >> >> Here are two very different examples: >> >> I did a freight forwarding package for a company that previously was >> entirely paper based. They took a - let's say "flexible" - approach to >> rules, validations, pricing, descriptions etc - and wanted to keep that. >> Providing a traditional system, with a nailed down design and entry >> screens >> just wouldn't work for them. In fact I tried that first as a prototype, >> and >> it didn't. Not in their culture. >> So I designed a system that worked the same way as their forms. Every >> page >> matched the standard forms they used, except that information >> automatically >> infilled, was sent to their billing systems, collated to their work flow >> for >> follow ups and diarising etc ... But all invisibly. What they 'saw' were >> the >> forms they had used throughout. Even the validation was fairly soft, and >> consisted mainly of highlighting things that were suspect. Annoying >> popups >> were kept to an absolute minimum, text and codes expanded directly from >> typing, and generally the whole thing designed to look and feel as >> unobtrusive as possible: nothing to interrupt their work flow. I couldn't >> have done that with a character based system because it couldn't have >> represented the compexity of some of the forms (try doing an airway bill >> or >> customs declaration form and you'll see what I mean). >> >> As a more traditional example, I have a project management system that I >> both designed and use. This is based on drill down principles, allowing >> me >> to track projects, modules, scheduled and tasks. Here the advantage of a >> GUI >> is persistence and workflow: because a GUI allows me to have multiple >> windows open modelessly, I can track down from the projects or work lists >> into the individual tasks whilst keeping the lists (heirarchically >> arranged) >> still visible, so I don't have to keep closing down windows or >> reselecting: >> generally much more efficient. I can also display more, since most of the >> time I am interested in viewing information rather than changing it -
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Strangely enough, one of the early iterations of our product was implemented in Delphi even today that is what the middleware layer is written in. Have had a play with Macromedia to - you CAN do some nifty stuff with the latest MX stuff, BUT I believe there are a few (non-trivial) obstacles that would need to be overcome - but the scripting IS powerful ! Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage – an Evolution in Software Development >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Brian Leach >Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 9:22 PM >To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' >Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based > >>>I was hoping Ross would recognise the possiblity that Windows might go >the >same way despite current market domination. > >So write your clients in Delphi - > >Delphi for Windows native >Delphi for .Net >Delphi (Kylix) for Linux >and D2J - produces Java bytecode from Delphi. > > >Or if you want browser based cross platform - is anyone on the list using >Macromedia flash to talk to U2 through web services? I haven't had the >chance to experiment with that yet :-( but AFAIK flash is available as a >plug in on Windows, Linux and Mac and it should be possible to do some >pretty good interactive stuff using that combination ... > > >Brian > > > > >This email was checked on leaving Microgen for viruses, similar >malicious code and inappropriate content by MessageLabs SkyScan. > >DISCLAIMER > >This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be >privileged. > >If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender >immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other >person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information. > >In the event of any technical difficulty with this email, please >contact the sender or [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Microgen Information Management Solutions >http://www.microgen.co.uk >-- >u2-users mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.661 / Virus Database: 424 - Release Date: 19/04/2004 > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.661 / Virus Database: 424 - Release Date: 19/04/2004 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
Hi Craig,
At 03:12 PM 20/04/2004, Craig Bennett wrote:
>Perhaps you need to look at XAML/Avalon, which will be part of Windows
"Longhorn" by the time it >BYTES, the various opensource CLT projects
should be up & away, and you may have your path.
Sorry for the ignorance, but what is CLT?
Do you mean CLR('R' is next to 'T' on my keyboard) as in Mono and dotGnu?
Nevertheless, the thrust of you argument (and presumable the intended point
of your straw poll) is not necessarily correct -- just because windows has
vast market domination now, it does not follow that this will remain the
case: just ask WordPerfect and Lotus (or DOS devotees or dumb terminal
vendors or Eudora users or Netscape shareholders or vb6 developers).
We recently installed FreeDOS and a terminal emulator to replace old
Windows machines which we had lost the license documentation for after a
visit from Microsoft Licensing...if you think MS are 's and lawyers are
's wait till you meet these guys.
- Robert
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
>>I was hoping Ross would recognise the possiblity that Windows might go the same way despite current market domination. So write your clients in Delphi - Delphi for Windows native Delphi for .Net Delphi (Kylix) for Linux and D2J - produces Java bytecode from Delphi. Or if you want browser based cross platform - is anyone on the list using Macromedia flash to talk to U2 through web services? I haven't had the chance to experiment with that yet :-( but AFAIK flash is available as a plug in on Windows, Linux and Mac and it should be possible to do some pretty good interactive stuff using that combination ... Brian This email was checked on leaving Microgen for viruses, similar malicious code and inappropriate content by MessageLabs SkyScan. DISCLAIMER This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information. In the event of any technical difficulty with this email, please contact the sender or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Microgen Information Management Solutions http://www.microgen.co.uk -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Any objection to me chasing that small 95% portion of the market in the meantime ? I figure I've been in the "winning 5%" end of the niche for too long :-) Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage – an Evolution in Software Development >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Craig Bennett >Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 4:14 PM >To: U2 Users Discussion List >Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based > >>> just ask WordPerfect and Lotus (or DOS devotees or dumb terminal >>>vendors or Eudora users or Netscape shareholders or vb6 developers). >> >>And, just what's wrong with these things?They're still available. >And >>work And are used. > >Not a thing Bruce I wasn't suggesting there was. But there was a time when >Lotus and Wordperfect where the behemoths which Excel and Word struggled to >catch. > >I was hoping Ross would recognise the possiblity that Windows might go the >same way despite current market domination. > > >Craig > >-- >u2-users mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.661 / Virus Database: 424 - Release Date: 19/04/2004 > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.661 / Virus Database: 424 - Release Date: 19/04/2004 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
My understanding of XAML is that it is an open standard (or moving in that direction) . and I wouldn't be surprised if part of the recent "agreement" between M$ & $un didn't pan out to be the adoption of XAML as a universal representation for the GUI (XAML = Extensible Application Markup Language) Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage – an Evolution in Software Development >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Craig Bennett >Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 3:12 PM >To: U2 Users Discussion List >Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based > >>Perhaps you need to look at XAML/Avalon, which will be part of Windows >"Longhorn" by the time it >BYTES, the various opensource CLT projects >should be up & away, and you may have your path. > >But Ross, that gives me no more advantages than using IE6 in the context of >Dawn's question (although I can see how an application vendor tied hard to >windows might feel a little defensive about criteria 1 :) > >All our desktops at work and at clients are wintel (I run Slackware at >home). > >Nevertheless, the thrust of you argument (and presumable the intended point >of your straw poll) is not necessarily correct -- just because windows has >vast market domination now, it does not follow that this will remain the >case: just ask WordPerfect and Lotus (or DOS devotees or dumb terminal >vendors or Eudora users or Netscape shareholders or vb6 developers). > > >Craig > >-- >u2-users mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.661 / Virus Database: 424 - Release Date: 19/04/2004 > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.661 / Virus Database: 424 - Release Date: 19/04/2004 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
Dawn and all, Another aspect of GUI, which we sure have to consider, is data communication lines. Our operation is spread over 1000 kilometres, and sending GUI screens back and forth will certainly clog our lines. Except when you make use of local intelligence. The volume of data sent to paint a GUI screen must certainly be a factor of 50 more than with CUI. (?) Schalk On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:02:31 +0100, Brian Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: To go back to Dawn's original post - Dawn, I've been writing GUI applications for UniVerse for about 15 years now. Some have worked, some have - well - been learning experiences. You shouldn't really compare GUI and character based. Why? Because then you inevitably start to think of the GUI in character based terms - the arrangement of controls on a form, or the addition of some buttons. That's my main beef with 'intelligent' terminals - they obscure the real picture. GUI is not about what you put on the screen. It's about the flow of information, and how that flow best suits the application in question. Data entry is part of that flow, but only part: character based is good for some data entry and for administration, but a good application is also about navigation, culture and the ease of finding information again. Here are two very different examples: I did a freight forwarding package for a company that previously was entirely paper based. They took a - let's say "flexible" - approach to rules, validations, pricing, descriptions etc - and wanted to keep that. Providing a traditional system, with a nailed down design and entry screens just wouldn't work for them. In fact I tried that first as a prototype, and it didn't. Not in their culture. So I designed a system that worked the same way as their forms. Every page matched the standard forms they used, except that information automatically infilled, was sent to their billing systems, collated to their work flow for follow ups and diarising etc ... But all invisibly. What they 'saw' were the forms they had used throughout. Even the validation was fairly soft, and consisted mainly of highlighting things that were suspect. Annoying popups were kept to an absolute minimum, text and codes expanded directly from typing, and generally the whole thing designed to look and feel as unobtrusive as possible: nothing to interrupt their work flow. I couldn't have done that with a character based system because it couldn't have represented the compexity of some of the forms (try doing an airway bill or customs declaration form and you'll see what I mean). As a more traditional example, I have a project management system that I both designed and use. This is based on drill down principles, allowing me to track projects, modules, scheduled and tasks. Here the advantage of a GUI is persistence and workflow: because a GUI allows me to have multiple windows open modelessly, I can track down from the projects or work lists into the individual tasks whilst keeping the lists (heirarchically arranged) still visible, so I don't have to keep closing down windows or reselecting: generally much more efficient. I can also display more, since most of the time I am interested in viewing information rather than changing it - and at the viewing stage I can use smaller fonts to display things that when amended need larger screen estate. The diary is a case in point: I can use colours and smaller fonts to show different entries in a way that a green screen application wouldn't accommodate. And naturally I keep a document path, so any documents/project plans/applications or other materials connected with a task can be opened directly on my desktop. I have seen good GUIs: ones that improve process and work flow and make life genuinely easier. I have seen bad GUIs that interrupt work flow, slow people down (bl**dy mice and message boxes). Good GUI works. Bad GUI is bad bad bad. But too often GUI is blamed for the lack of vision or competence of those implementing it. Brian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn M. Wolthuis Sent: 20 April 2004 02:03 To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based Citrix and I don't get along -- too many bad memories trying to set up ODBC so that client machines ... anyway, I know that there are reasons that shops use it, just as there are reasons I hope not to have to touch the product again ;-) And I didn't intend for Java to be the only possible solution to fit the rules -- I just tried to be sure to rule out the V-word ;-) [Just a little joke there -- I actually think that Visage is likely an excellent choice for Microsoft-centric sites and I'm a Ross-fan myself, remember] Cheers! --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and g
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
To go back to Dawn's original post - Dawn, I've been writing GUI applications for UniVerse for about 15 years now. Some have worked, some have - well - been learning experiences. You shouldn't really compare GUI and character based. Why? Because then you inevitably start to think of the GUI in character based terms - the arrangement of controls on a form, or the addition of some buttons. That's my main beef with 'intelligent' terminals - they obscure the real picture. GUI is not about what you put on the screen. It's about the flow of information, and how that flow best suits the application in question. Data entry is part of that flow, but only part: character based is good for some data entry and for administration, but a good application is also about navigation, culture and the ease of finding information again. Here are two very different examples: I did a freight forwarding package for a company that previously was entirely paper based. They took a - let's say "flexible" - approach to rules, validations, pricing, descriptions etc - and wanted to keep that. Providing a traditional system, with a nailed down design and entry screens just wouldn't work for them. In fact I tried that first as a prototype, and it didn't. Not in their culture. So I designed a system that worked the same way as their forms. Every page matched the standard forms they used, except that information automatically infilled, was sent to their billing systems, collated to their work flow for follow ups and diarising etc ... But all invisibly. What they 'saw' were the forms they had used throughout. Even the validation was fairly soft, and consisted mainly of highlighting things that were suspect. Annoying popups were kept to an absolute minimum, text and codes expanded directly from typing, and generally the whole thing designed to look and feel as unobtrusive as possible: nothing to interrupt their work flow. I couldn't have done that with a character based system because it couldn't have represented the compexity of some of the forms (try doing an airway bill or customs declaration form and you'll see what I mean). As a more traditional example, I have a project management system that I both designed and use. This is based on drill down principles, allowing me to track projects, modules, scheduled and tasks. Here the advantage of a GUI is persistence and workflow: because a GUI allows me to have multiple windows open modelessly, I can track down from the projects or work lists into the individual tasks whilst keeping the lists (heirarchically arranged) still visible, so I don't have to keep closing down windows or reselecting: generally much more efficient. I can also display more, since most of the time I am interested in viewing information rather than changing it - and at the viewing stage I can use smaller fonts to display things that when amended need larger screen estate. The diary is a case in point: I can use colours and smaller fonts to show different entries in a way that a green screen application wouldn't accommodate. And naturally I keep a document path, so any documents/project plans/applications or other materials connected with a task can be opened directly on my desktop. I have seen good GUIs: ones that improve process and work flow and make life genuinely easier. I have seen bad GUIs that interrupt work flow, slow people down (bl**dy mice and message boxes). Good GUI works. Bad GUI is bad bad bad. But too often GUI is blamed for the lack of vision or competence of those implementing it. Brian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn M. Wolthuis Sent: 20 April 2004 02:03 To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based Citrix and I don't get along -- too many bad memories trying to set up ODBC so that client machines ... anyway, I know that there are reasons that shops use it, just as there are reasons I hope not to have to touch the product again ;-) And I didn't intend for Java to be the only possible solution to fit the rules -- I just tried to be sure to rule out the V-word ;-) [Just a little joke there -- I actually think that Visage is likely an excellent choice for Microsoft-centric sites and I'm a Ross-fan myself, remember] Cheers! --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ross Ferris Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 7:21 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based Dawn, Citrix Server would break DLG (Dawn's Law of GUI) rule 4 anyway, as you would need to pre-install Citrix client software on most platforms. BTW Dawn, do you have a mathematic proof of DLG ? Just wondering, 'cause just
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
And if they show any sign of regaining their old market share on Windows, expect the "and work" to cease to be true ... Actually - isn't that one of the aims of Longhorn - to totally break all legacy doze apps? Cheers, Wol -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Nichol Sent: 20 April 2004 06:56 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based At 15:12 20/04/04, you wrote: > just ask WordPerfect and Lotus (or DOS devotees or dumb terminal >vendors or Eudora users or Netscape shareholders or vb6 developers). And, just what's wrong with these things?They're still available. And work And are used. This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. Please e-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error or telephone ECA International immediately and delete the e-mail from your information system. Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)2 9911 7799, Hong Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 and New York +1 212 582 2333. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
In a message dated 4/19/2004 10:57:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Well, perhaps not DOS or dumb terminal vendors wanna bet ? Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
>> just ask WordPerfect and Lotus (or DOS devotees or dumb terminal >>vendors or Eudora users or Netscape shareholders or vb6 developers). > >And, just what's wrong with these things?They're still available. And >work And are used. Not a thing Bruce I wasn't suggesting there was. But there was a time when Lotus and Wordperfect where the behemoths which Excel and Word struggled to catch. I was hoping Ross would recognise the possiblity that Windows might go the same way despite current market domination. Craig -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
At 15:12 20/04/04, you wrote: just ask WordPerfect and Lotus (or DOS devotees or dumb terminal vendors or Eudora users or Netscape shareholders or vb6 developers). And, just what's wrong with these things?They're still available. And work And are used. Well, perhaps not DOS or dumb terminal vendors It may be that 99 or whatever % Microsoft users tie themselves to Outlook (or whatever) mail client.Or Word. Or Excel.Most of them don't know of any alternative. Same thing for IE.. Ships with the box Everybody knows about it Maybe, just maybe, the users of these alternative products know a bit about the background of Micro$oft products, and are glad that there is, and they're using, an alternative. How many virii, worms, hackers, what-have-you are directed at Micro$oft products ? Perhaps there are some people in the market who like to provide an alternative, can exist on their earnings, and grow a bit, and are not the greedy mongrels loose in the Micro$oft cupboard Craig -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 7.0.230 / Virus Database: 262.9.0 - Release Date: 19/04/04 Regards, Bruce Nichol Talon Computer Services ALBURYNSW 2640 Australia Tel: +61 (0)411149636 Fax: +61 (0)260232119 If it ain't broke, fix it till it is! -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 7.0.230 / Virus Database: 262.9.0 - Release Date: 19/04/04 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
>Perhaps you need to look at XAML/Avalon, which will be part of Windows "Longhorn" by the time it >BYTES, the various opensource CLT projects should be up & away, and you may have your path. But Ross, that gives me no more advantages than using IE6 in the context of Dawn's question (although I can see how an application vendor tied hard to windows might feel a little defensive about criteria 1 :) All our desktops at work and at clients are wintel (I run Slackware at home). Nevertheless, the thrust of you argument (and presumable the intended point of your straw poll) is not necessarily correct -- just because windows has vast market domination now, it does not follow that this will remain the case: just ask WordPerfect and Lotus (or DOS devotees or dumb terminal vendors or Eudora users or Netscape shareholders or vb6 developers). Craig -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
H, That could exclude Java, as I don't think the JVM ships these days with XP, does it ? Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage – an Evolution in Software Development >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 1:57 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based > >In a message dated 4/19/2004 6:36:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >> This does violate your rule about zero install, but I can't think of a >real >> zero install technology ... once you consider web browser dependencies, >java >> dependencies, flash player dependencies, citrix dependencies, terminal >> emulation dependencies etc there is always *something* you need to have >or >> fiddle with on the client (otherwise we'd all be shipping PCs with no O/S >> installed). >> >> >> Craig > >You can't really have a zero client footprint. I'd rephrase Dawn's >statement >to say that perhaps you are using client software that "the average person >would ALREADY have installed" such as a browser, a jpg viewer, a mp3 >player, >etc. >Will >-- >u2-users mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.659 / Virus Database: 423 - Release Date: 15/04/2004 > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.659 / Virus Database: 423 - Release Date: 15/04/2004 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
>You can't really have a zero client footprint. I'd rephrase Dawn's statement >to say that perhaps you are using client software that "the average person >would ALREADY have installed" such as a browser, a jpg viewer, a mp3 player, >etc. As long as its the RIGHT browser, an appropriate version, configured correctly. Craig -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
In a message dated 4/19/2004 6:36:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > This does violate your rule about zero install, but I can't think of a real > zero install technology ... once you consider web browser dependencies, java > dependencies, flash player dependencies, citrix dependencies, terminal > emulation dependencies etc there is always *something* you need to have or > fiddle with on the client (otherwise we'd all be shipping PCs with no O/S > installed). > > > Craig You can't really have a zero client footprint. I'd rephrase Dawn's statement to say that perhaps you are using client software that "the average person would ALREADY have installed" such as a browser, a jpg viewer, a mp3 player, etc. Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
> >I also think the world is crying out for a cross platform application >browesr (same idea as a web browser, but for running applications defined >using XML and downloaded from a server. Not designed for browsing websites >and hence with different security requirements (and permission to do more >things on the client)). > Perhaps you need to look at XAML/Avalon, which will be part of Windows "Longhorn" by the time it BYTES, the various opensource CLT projects should be up & away, and you may have your path. We've started to "play" with this as part of the overall evolutionary path of our product (Clif won't let me mention Viságe unless I put an [AD] in the subject) Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage - an Evolution in Software Development >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Craig Bennett >Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 11:32 AM >To: U2 Users Discussion List >Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based > >Dawn, > >how blue sky are we talking? > >I am hugely impressed with wxWidgets (http://www.wxwidgets.org) a C++ GUI >framework for developing applications on Windows, X, Mac, OS/2. > >I also think the world is crying out for a cross platform application >browesr (same idea as a web browser, but for running applications defined >using XML and downloaded from a server. Not designed for browsing websites >and hence with different security requirements (and permission to do more >things on the client)). > >Want to colaborate to write one with wxWidgets? :) > >This does violate your rule about zero install, but I can't think of a real >zero install technology ... once you consider web browser dependencies, >java >dependencies, flash player dependencies, citrix dependencies, terminal >emulation dependencies etc there is always *something* you need to have or >fiddle with on the client (otherwise we'd all be shipping PCs with no O/S >installed). > > >Craig > >-- >u2-users mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.659 / Virus Database: 423 - Release Date: 15/04/2004 > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.659 / Virus Database: 423 - Release Date: 15/04/2004 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
Dawn, how blue sky are we talking? I am hugely impressed with wxWidgets (http://www.wxwidgets.org) a C++ GUI framework for developing applications on Windows, X, Mac, OS/2. I also think the world is crying out for a cross platform application browesr (same idea as a web browser, but for running applications defined using XML and downloaded from a server. Not designed for browsing websites and hence with different security requirements (and permission to do more things on the client)). Want to colaborate to write one with wxWidgets? :) This does violate your rule about zero install, but I can't think of a real zero install technology ... once you consider web browser dependencies, java dependencies, flash player dependencies, citrix dependencies, terminal emulation dependencies etc there is always *something* you need to have or fiddle with on the client (otherwise we'd all be shipping PCs with no O/S installed). Craig -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
Dawn, What constitutes an acceptable level of client install? After all, if they are running a Mac, Wintel, Linux box, etc., they have pre-installed software. What about auto-install, auto-config software? that requires nothing of the user, but still requires additional software. - Chuck "Why's the Sky Blue" Barouch Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote: Citrix and I don't get along -- too many bad memories trying to set up ODBC so that client machines ... anyway, I know that there are reasons that shops use it, just as there are reasons I hope not to have to touch the product again ;-) And I didn't intend for Java to be the only possible solution to fit the rules -- I just tried to be sure to rule out the V-word ;-) [Just a little joke there -- I actually think that Visage is likely an excellent choice for Microsoft-centric sites and I'm a Ross-fan myself, remember] Cheers! --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ross Ferris Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 7:21 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based Dawn, Citrix Server would break DLG (Dawn's Law of GUI) rule 4 anyway, as you would need to pre-install Citrix client software on most platforms. BTW Dawn, do you have a mathematic proof of DLG ? Just wondering, 'cause just like the "Great Date Debate", many may be happy to 'bend' these rules because they don't apply to the environment they use ? For example, Citrix has MANY other advantages, especially in larger organizations, when it comes to issues like securing the desktop, and centralized updates etc. In Wyatt's case, he can simply install SmartTerm (oops, Windows only product, breaks rule 1 - hmm, but with Citrix his client 'can' be a Mac ?!!? Your "proof" could be 'interesting' ?!?!) onto his Server, and it then requires no pre-installation. He can have a link on a web page to download the Citrix client software does this 'break' your 'rules', or does it fit ? Of course Citrix Server/Terminal Server has an important place in larger enterprises, addressing issues like security, desktop lockdown, patch/update management, software distribution etc - which transcend DLG Also with your "rule revision" below, as with the original DLG, you still haven't included the "J" word, which I believe is an implicit (and understood) requirement for DLG !?! Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage - an Evolution in Software Development -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn M. Wolthuis Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 5:14 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based Ah, I should add or modify one of the requirements -- when I indicated that there needs to be no setup on the client, I should put that in the "client tier" and consider citrix servers to be application clients, of sorts. So, for my purposes (though not for everyone), a citrix server is not an option. 1. Client Tier (no setup) 2. Http Server Tier (could include app server, such as tomcat or EJB container such as Eclipse or WebSphere) 3. Database Server Tier I'll clarify the requirements to add "no more tiers". --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -----Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Buffington, Wyatt Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 1:57 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based We have been using a product called SmarTerm from Esker. It allows us to displays screen close to GUI that is easily configureable by the end user with little to no programming. It allows for HotSpots which appear as a button on the screen which the user can click on. Buttons are a list of things that a user can do that are mundane or repetitive, these can save wear and tear on the old fingers. It has a GUI pop up calendar that can be invoked from the host and the date returned back to the host. The user can change the colors on the screen to match their preferences. Email addresses and http links are highlighted differently and can be clickable. You can create you our macros that can be run from a Button. We use triggers to change our screen colors depending on which account we are in. If anyone is interested in a screen shot of what can be done. Email me offline at [EMAIL PROTECTED] We are currently using Version 11.0.5 on both PCs and Citrix Servers. I am also in the process of testing 12.1 Beta. -----Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Johnson Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 1:45 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: GUI as nice a
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Citrix and I don't get along -- too many bad memories trying to set up ODBC so that client machines ... anyway, I know that there are reasons that shops use it, just as there are reasons I hope not to have to touch the product again ;-) And I didn't intend for Java to be the only possible solution to fit the rules -- I just tried to be sure to rule out the V-word ;-) [Just a little joke there -- I actually think that Visage is likely an excellent choice for Microsoft-centric sites and I'm a Ross-fan myself, remember] Cheers! --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ross Ferris Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 7:21 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based Dawn, Citrix Server would break DLG (Dawn's Law of GUI) rule 4 anyway, as you would need to pre-install Citrix client software on most platforms. BTW Dawn, do you have a mathematic proof of DLG ? Just wondering, 'cause just like the "Great Date Debate", many may be happy to 'bend' these rules because they don't apply to the environment they use ? For example, Citrix has MANY other advantages, especially in larger organizations, when it comes to issues like securing the desktop, and centralized updates etc. In Wyatt's case, he can simply install SmartTerm (oops, Windows only product, breaks rule 1 - hmm, but with Citrix his client 'can' be a Mac ?!!? Your "proof" could be 'interesting' ?!?!) onto his Server, and it then requires no pre-installation. He can have a link on a web page to download the Citrix client software does this 'break' your 'rules', or does it fit ? Of course Citrix Server/Terminal Server has an important place in larger enterprises, addressing issues like security, desktop lockdown, patch/update management, software distribution etc - which transcend DLG Also with your "rule revision" below, as with the original DLG, you still haven't included the "J" word, which I believe is an implicit (and understood) requirement for DLG !?! Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage - an Evolution in Software Development >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Dawn M. Wolthuis >Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 5:14 AM >To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' >Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based > >Ah, I should add or modify one of the requirements -- when I indicated that >there needs to be no setup on the client, I should put that in the "client >tier" and consider citrix servers to be application clients, of sorts. So, >for my purposes (though not for everyone), a citrix server is not an >option. > >1. Client Tier (no setup) >2. Http Server Tier (could include app server, such as tomcat or EJB >container such as Eclipse or WebSphere) >3. Database Server Tier > >I'll clarify the requirements to add "no more tiers". > >--dawn > >Dawn M. Wolthuis >Tincat Group, Inc. >www.tincat-group.com > >Take and give some delight today. > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Buffington, Wyatt >Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 1:57 PM >To: U2 Users Discussion List >Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based > >We have been using a product called SmarTerm from Esker. It allows us to >displays screen close to GUI that is easily configureable by the end >user with little to no programming. It allows for HotSpots which appear >as a button on the screen which the user can click on. Buttons are a >list of things that a user can do that are mundane or repetitive, these >can save wear and tear on the old fingers. It has a GUI pop up calendar >that can be invoked from the host and the date returned back to the >host. The user can change the colors on the screen to match their >preferences. Email addresses and http links are highlighted differently >and can be clickable. You can create you our macros that can be run from >a Button. We use triggers to change our screen colors depending on which >account we are in. > >If anyone is interested in a screen shot of what can be done. Email me >offline at >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >We are currently using Version 11.0.5 on both PCs and Citrix Servers. I >am also in the process of testing 12.1 Beta. > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >On Behalf Of Mark Johnson >Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 1:45 PM >To: U2 Users Discussion List >Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based > > >Dawn: Good luck in your search for this holy grail. Lemme know
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Dawn, Citrix Server would break DLG (Dawn's Law of GUI) rule 4 anyway, as you would need to pre-install Citrix client software on most platforms. BTW Dawn, do you have a mathematic proof of DLG ? Just wondering, 'cause just like the "Great Date Debate", many may be happy to 'bend' these rules because they don't apply to the environment they use ? For example, Citrix has MANY other advantages, especially in larger organizations, when it comes to issues like securing the desktop, and centralized updates etc. In Wyatt's case, he can simply install SmartTerm (oops, Windows only product, breaks rule 1 - hmm, but with Citrix his client 'can' be a Mac ?!!? Your "proof" could be 'interesting' ?!?!) onto his Server, and it then requires no pre-installation. He can have a link on a web page to download the Citrix client software does this 'break' your 'rules', or does it fit ? Of course Citrix Server/Terminal Server has an important place in larger enterprises, addressing issues like security, desktop lockdown, patch/update management, software distribution etc - which transcend DLG Also with your "rule revision" below, as with the original DLG, you still haven't included the "J" word, which I believe is an implicit (and understood) requirement for DLG !?! Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage – an Evolution in Software Development >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Dawn M. Wolthuis >Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 5:14 AM >To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' >Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based > >Ah, I should add or modify one of the requirements -- when I indicated that >there needs to be no setup on the client, I should put that in the "client >tier" and consider citrix servers to be application clients, of sorts. So, >for my purposes (though not for everyone), a citrix server is not an >option. > >1. Client Tier (no setup) >2. Http Server Tier (could include app server, such as tomcat or EJB >container such as Eclipse or WebSphere) >3. Database Server Tier > >I'll clarify the requirements to add "no more tiers". > >--dawn > >Dawn M. Wolthuis >Tincat Group, Inc. >www.tincat-group.com > >Take and give some delight today. > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Buffington, Wyatt >Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 1:57 PM >To: U2 Users Discussion List >Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based > >We have been using a product called SmarTerm from Esker. It allows us to >displays screen close to GUI that is easily configureable by the end >user with little to no programming. It allows for HotSpots which appear >as a button on the screen which the user can click on. Buttons are a >list of things that a user can do that are mundane or repetitive, these >can save wear and tear on the old fingers. It has a GUI pop up calendar >that can be invoked from the host and the date returned back to the >host. The user can change the colors on the screen to match their >preferences. Email addresses and http links are highlighted differently >and can be clickable. You can create you our macros that can be run from >a Button. We use triggers to change our screen colors depending on which >account we are in. > >If anyone is interested in a screen shot of what can be done. Email me >offline at >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >We are currently using Version 11.0.5 on both PCs and Citrix Servers. I >am also in the process of testing 12.1 Beta. > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >On Behalf Of Mark Johnson >Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 1:45 PM >To: U2 Users Discussion List >Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based > > >Dawn: Good luck in your search for this holy grail. Lemme know if such a >silver bullet is found. > >I've been hunting for years. > >Mark Johnson > > Original Message - >From: "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 2:17 PM >Subject: GUI as nice as character-based > > >I haven't gotten through all of the postings in the GUI thread as yet, >but am working on the question of how to write a GUI that is as good as >a "green screen" from the perspective of folks currently using a green >screen application. I saw hints at that, but nothing that tackled it >from the standpoint of being able to use any tools on the market today >to accomplish this (no need to retain databasic code, for example). > >What could be used to actually replace, completely
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
We first tried wIntegrate that created the GUI environment but of course required a client side. It worked pretty well and we still have a client using and asking for modifications to those applications. Several years ago, we found RedBack which runs under Unidata/Universe. Initially we focused on getting the applications done. Once they we completed we worked on the other issues: such as the length of development time, consistency of the code, training Basic programmers to code ASP/JavaScript/HTML, and ease custom coding. We solved these issues with a product called XLr8. XLr8 helps us code without that steep learning curve, producing industry standard code that programmers outside the U2 world can read and modify, and gives us a built in source code control module. Below is the answers to your requirements: 1) Browser based (Mozilla or IE) runs on all platforms 2) Attractive forms using Cascading Style Sheets (css) 3) Respond to key strokes using JavaScript. 4) Only a Browser needed, no plugins or client side software. 5) XMLHTTP threads off processes so the need for type ahead is abated. 6) Heads down type ahead is accomplished in two ways. First tabindex is set for all prompts. Secondly, validation is through dropdowns, or using the XMLHTTP engine for threaded processes, thus keeping the speed close to green screen. Hope this helps, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 12:17 PM Subject: GUI as nice as character-based I haven't gotten through all of the postings in the GUI thread as yet, but am working on the question of how to write a GUI that is as good as a "green screen" from the perspective of folks currently using a green screen application. I saw hints at that, but nothing that tackled it from the standpoint of being able to use any tools on the market today to accomplish this (no need to retain databasic code, for example). What could be used to actually replace, completely, the character screens? Requirements: 0) work with U2 as multiuser databases 1) Be able to use any Windows, new Mac (unix) or Linux client 2) Have graphically attractive & colorful screens, looking enough like standard GUIs (M$, in particular) that users would understand the use of icons, etc. 3) Respond to keystrokes by users -- not only to the click of a "submit" button 4) Require no preparation of the client computers in advance of using the software, likely directing user to a web page. 5) "type ahead" can be done so that the user is not waiting constantly for the computer to respond 6) Heads down data entry folks are as happy with this as they were with their green screens when they first got those and have only minor complaints if converting now from a green screen, none of substance What are the options -- who has written or seen such a GUI? --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
And as luck would have it, one of my recent clients uses Intuit Eclipse
(without the GUI) so I just might get a look at that in the future (not to
be confused with the IBM-ish Eclipse IDE & container).
Thanks, Jeff. --dawn
Dawn M. Wolthuis
Tincat Group, Inc.
www.tincat-group.com
Take and give some delight today.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeff Schasny
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 2:21 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based
My former employer Intuit Eclipse has successfully implemented a Java front
end ("Solar Eclipse"... get it, Sun... Java... Solar, Arrgh) for their
distribution ERP system. The nice part is that you can use any combibnation
of GUI and character interface you like. For example, the guys in the
warehouse can have old PC's with the Eclipse terminal emulator (which by the
way allows a multi windowing charachter interface)installed while the
accounting folks use the GUI or you can even run the terminal emulator for
some things on the same PC as the Java GUI. This was all possible because
the entire ERP system was VERY modular including a very smart "INPUT"
routing used by every process requiring inputs from a user. Even so, the
development of the java front end took over 2 years.
-Original Message-
From: Dawn M. Wolthuis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I haven't gotten through all of the postings in the GUI thread as yet, but
am working on the question of how to write a GUI that is as good as a "green
screen" from the perspective of folks currently using a green screen
application. I saw hints at that, but nothing that tackled it from the
standpoint of being able to use any tools on the market today to accomplish
this (no need to retain databasic code, for example).
What could be used to actually replace, completely, the character screens?
Requirements:
0) work with U2 as multiuser databases
1) Be able to use any Windows, new Mac (unix) or Linux client
2) Have graphically attractive & colorful screens, looking enough like
standard GUIs (M$, in particular) that users would understand the use of
icons, etc.
3) Respond to keystrokes by users -- not only to the click of a "submit"
button
4) Require no preparation of the client computers in advance of using the
software, likely directing user to a web page.
5) "type ahead" can be done so that the user is not waiting constantly for
the computer to respond
6) Heads down data entry folks are as happy with this as they were with
their green screens when they first got those and have only minor complaints
if converting now from a green screen, none of substance
What are the options -- who has written or seen such a GUI? --dawn
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
A friend of ours works for H&R Block. We had some questions regarding taxes and found out that H&R would let her run the figures through their Tax program. I'd sure like to know what its built on as it was one of the best GUI's I've seen. At 01:17 PM 4/19/2004, Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote: I haven't gotten through all of the postings in the GUI thread as yet, but am working on the question of how to write a GUI that is as good as a "green screen" from the perspective of folks currently using a green screen application. I saw hints at that, but nothing that tackled it from the standpoint of being able to use any tools on the market today to accomplish this (no need to retain databasic code, for example). What could be used to actually replace, completely, the character screens? Requirements: 0) work with U2 as multiuser databases 1) Be able to use any Windows, new Mac (unix) or Linux client 2) Have graphically attractive & colorful screens, looking enough like standard GUIs (M$, in particular) that users would understand the use of icons, etc. 3) Respond to keystrokes by users -- not only to the click of a "submit" button 4) Require no preparation of the client computers in advance of using the software, likely directing user to a web page. 5) "type ahead" can be done so that the user is not waiting constantly for the computer to respond 6) Heads down data entry folks are as happy with this as they were with their green screens when they first got those and have only minor complaints if converting now from a green screen, none of substance What are the options -- who has written or seen such a GUI? --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users *---* Jon Wells Database Administrator Beloit College Information Services & Resources Beloit, Wisconsin 608-363-2290 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 608-363-2100 (fax) *---* -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
My former employer Intuit Eclipse has successfully implemented a Java front
end ("Solar Eclipse"... get it, Sun... Java... Solar, Arrgh) for their
distribution ERP system. The nice part is that you can use any combibnation
of GUI and character interface you like. For example, the guys in the
warehouse can have old PC's with the Eclipse terminal emulator (which by the
way allows a multi windowing charachter interface)installed while the
accounting folks use the GUI or you can even run the terminal emulator for
some things on the same PC as the Java GUI. This was all possible because
the entire ERP system was VERY modular including a very smart "INPUT"
routing used by every process requiring inputs from a user. Even so, the
development of the java front end took over 2 years.
-Original Message-
From: Dawn M. Wolthuis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I haven't gotten through all of the postings in the GUI thread as yet, but
am working on the question of how to write a GUI that is as good as a "green
screen" from the perspective of folks currently using a green screen
application. I saw hints at that, but nothing that tackled it from the
standpoint of being able to use any tools on the market today to accomplish
this (no need to retain databasic code, for example).
What could be used to actually replace, completely, the character screens?
Requirements:
0) work with U2 as multiuser databases
1) Be able to use any Windows, new Mac (unix) or Linux client
2) Have graphically attractive & colorful screens, looking enough like
standard GUIs (M$, in particular) that users would understand the use of
icons, etc.
3) Respond to keystrokes by users -- not only to the click of a "submit"
button
4) Require no preparation of the client computers in advance of using the
software, likely directing user to a web page.
5) "type ahead" can be done so that the user is not waiting constantly for
the computer to respond
6) Heads down data entry folks are as happy with this as they were with
their green screens when they first got those and have only minor complaints
if converting now from a green screen, none of substance
What are the options -- who has written or seen such a GUI? --dawn
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
Ah, I should add or modify one of the requirements -- when I indicated that there needs to be no setup on the client, I should put that in the "client tier" and consider citrix servers to be application clients, of sorts. So, for my purposes (though not for everyone), a citrix server is not an option. 1. Client Tier (no setup) 2. Http Server Tier (could include app server, such as tomcat or EJB container such as Eclipse or WebSphere) 3. Database Server Tier I'll clarify the requirements to add "no more tiers". --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Buffington, Wyatt Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 1:57 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: GUI as nice as character-based We have been using a product called SmarTerm from Esker. It allows us to displays screen close to GUI that is easily configureable by the end user with little to no programming. It allows for HotSpots which appear as a button on the screen which the user can click on. Buttons are a list of things that a user can do that are mundane or repetitive, these can save wear and tear on the old fingers. It has a GUI pop up calendar that can be invoked from the host and the date returned back to the host. The user can change the colors on the screen to match their preferences. Email addresses and http links are highlighted differently and can be clickable. You can create you our macros that can be run from a Button. We use triggers to change our screen colors depending on which account we are in. If anyone is interested in a screen shot of what can be done. Email me offline at [EMAIL PROTECTED] We are currently using Version 11.0.5 on both PCs and Citrix Servers. I am also in the process of testing 12.1 Beta. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Johnson Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 1:45 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based Dawn: Good luck in your search for this holy grail. Lemme know if such a silver bullet is found. I've been hunting for years. Mark Johnson Original Message - From: "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 2:17 PM Subject: GUI as nice as character-based I haven't gotten through all of the postings in the GUI thread as yet, but am working on the question of how to write a GUI that is as good as a "green screen" from the perspective of folks currently using a green screen application. I saw hints at that, but nothing that tackled it from the standpoint of being able to use any tools on the market today to accomplish this (no need to retain databasic code, for example). What could be used to actually replace, completely, the character screens? Requirements: 0) work with U2 as multiuser databases 1) Be able to use any Windows, new Mac (unix) or Linux client 2) Have graphically attractive & colorful screens, looking enough like standard GUIs (M$, in particular) that users would understand the use of icons, etc. 3) Respond to keystrokes by users -- not only to the click of a "submit" button 4) Require no preparation of the client computers in advance of using the software, likely directing user to a web page. 5) "type ahead" can be done so that the user is not waiting constantly for the computer to respond 6) Heads down data entry folks are as happy with this as they were with their green screens when they first got those and have only minor complaints if converting now from a green screen, none of substance What are the options -- who has written or seen such a GUI? --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: GUI as nice as character-based
We have been using a product called SmarTerm from Esker. It allows us to displays screen close to GUI that is easily configureable by the end user with little to no programming. It allows for HotSpots which appear as a button on the screen which the user can click on. Buttons are a list of things that a user can do that are mundane or repetitive, these can save wear and tear on the old fingers. It has a GUI pop up calendar that can be invoked from the host and the date returned back to the host. The user can change the colors on the screen to match their preferences. Email addresses and http links are highlighted differently and can be clickable. You can create you our macros that can be run from a Button. We use triggers to change our screen colors depending on which account we are in. If anyone is interested in a screen shot of what can be done. Email me offline at [EMAIL PROTECTED] We are currently using Version 11.0.5 on both PCs and Citrix Servers. I am also in the process of testing 12.1 Beta. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Johnson Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 1:45 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: GUI as nice as character-based Dawn: Good luck in your search for this holy grail. Lemme know if such a silver bullet is found. I've been hunting for years. Mark Johnson Original Message - From: "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 2:17 PM Subject: GUI as nice as character-based I haven't gotten through all of the postings in the GUI thread as yet, but am working on the question of how to write a GUI that is as good as a "green screen" from the perspective of folks currently using a green screen application. I saw hints at that, but nothing that tackled it from the standpoint of being able to use any tools on the market today to accomplish this (no need to retain databasic code, for example). What could be used to actually replace, completely, the character screens? Requirements: 0) work with U2 as multiuser databases 1) Be able to use any Windows, new Mac (unix) or Linux client 2) Have graphically attractive & colorful screens, looking enough like standard GUIs (M$, in particular) that users would understand the use of icons, etc. 3) Respond to keystrokes by users -- not only to the click of a "submit" button 4) Require no preparation of the client computers in advance of using the software, likely directing user to a web page. 5) "type ahead" can be done so that the user is not waiting constantly for the computer to respond 6) Heads down data entry folks are as happy with this as they were with their green screens when they first got those and have only minor complaints if converting now from a green screen, none of substance What are the options -- who has written or seen such a GUI? --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: GUI as nice as character-based
Dawn: Good luck in your search for this holy grail. Lemme know if such a silver bullet is found. I've been hunting for years. Mark Johnson Original Message - From: "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 2:17 PM Subject: GUI as nice as character-based I haven't gotten through all of the postings in the GUI thread as yet, but am working on the question of how to write a GUI that is as good as a "green screen" from the perspective of folks currently using a green screen application. I saw hints at that, but nothing that tackled it from the standpoint of being able to use any tools on the market today to accomplish this (no need to retain databasic code, for example). What could be used to actually replace, completely, the character screens? Requirements: 0) work with U2 as multiuser databases 1) Be able to use any Windows, new Mac (unix) or Linux client 2) Have graphically attractive & colorful screens, looking enough like standard GUIs (M$, in particular) that users would understand the use of icons, etc. 3) Respond to keystrokes by users -- not only to the click of a "submit" button 4) Require no preparation of the client computers in advance of using the software, likely directing user to a web page. 5) "type ahead" can be done so that the user is not waiting constantly for the computer to respond 6) Heads down data entry folks are as happy with this as they were with their green screens when they first got those and have only minor complaints if converting now from a green screen, none of substance What are the options -- who has written or seen such a GUI? --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
