Micro Focus - "new" Releases

I must have missed it, earlier this month, but FYI, Micro Focus has introduced
new releases of Net Express and Server Express - as well as a ".NET" product.
See:

http://www.microfocus.com/AboutMicro...s/51/index.asp ***I don't have (and haven't seen) any of these products, so I can't tell you whatthey do (and don't) have to offer. I plan on doing a "little digging" to findout what extensions to the LANGUAGE have been added - especially for .NETsupport.--Bill Klein wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

web addresses got "corrupted". I intended to reference

http://www.microfocus.com/AboutMicro...0708595384.asp

and

http://www.microfocus.com/promotions/51/index.asp

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:dS5ik.91484$o12.42178@fe03.news.easynews.com. ..
>I must have missed it, earlier this month, but FYI, Micro Focus has introduced
>new releases of Net Express and Server Express - as well as a ".NET" product.
>See:
>
> http://www.microfocus.com/AboutMicro...s/51/index.asp
> ***I don't have (and haven't seen) any of these products, so I can't tell you
> whatthey do (and don't) have to offer. I plan on doing a "little digging" to
> findout what extensions to the LANGUAGE have been added - especially for
> .NETsupport.--Bill Klein wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
>

On Jul 24, 10:53*pm, "William M. Klein" <wmkl...@nospam.netcom.com>
wrote:
> web addresses got "corrupted". *I intended to reference
>
> http://www.microfocus.com/AboutMicro...eases/pr200807...
>
> and
>
> http://www.microfocus.com/promotions/51/index.asp
>
> --
> Bill Klein
> *wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
> "William M. Klein" <wmkl...@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in messagenews:dS5ik..91484$o12.42178@fe03.news.easyn ews.com...
>
>
>
> >I must have missed it, earlier this month, but FYI, Micro Focus has introduced
> >new releases of Net Express and Server Express - as well as a ".NET" product.
> >See:
>
> >http://www.microfocus.com/AboutMicro...eases/pr200807...
> > ***I don't have (and haven't seen) any of these products, so I can't tell you
> > whatthey do (and don't) have to offer. *I plan on doing a "little digging" to
> > findout what extensions to the LANGUAGE have been added - especially for
> > .NETsupport.--Bill Klein wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi !

There is a big problem with the new "Net Express .Net" Version:

The version self is very good!

BUT:
If you have a service contract with Micro Focus you become normal the
lastest Version of Net Express
with all function. This is now different: You become onle Net Express
5.1 without the .Net part!
If you need the .Net Part you must pay now extra !!!
And the ist an new licens mechanism that need a new MF-Server on
the .Net Side!!!

At the end of the day you muat pay many money extra if you will use
Net Express .Net

> If you need the .Net Part you must pay now extra !!!
> And the ist an new licens mechanism that need a new MF-Server on
> the .Net Side!!!
>
> At the end of the day you muat pay many money extra if you will use
> Net Express .Net

That is how MF get their dough. You really have to pay that much
because they control the market (for Cobol that is). Fujitsu is
perceived as the David of the Goliath.

But this concerns me, remember NetExpress V3.10? It's been in the
torrent lately that there is a 'cracked' version. I do not know if
this is true. At any rate, 'legal' user of this product will knock
their heads off for paying for it then.

I got myself an evaluation copy before they provided me with and it is
now sitting ONLY in my Pentium 3 model PC (hoping it won't crash).
Tried installing it in my new laptop (new install, my old one broke)
and they won't give me any license anymore, so I only used it for
30days.

I used to train developers (in banks and insurance companies/
Philippines) locally in MFCobol using NetExpress.... but now since I
can't receive a valid license, I think I have to stop supporting them
as well.

As Pete (Dashwood) experienced, why pay so much when you have C#
for .Net for free. I still like Cobol, but hey...

"Rene_Surop" <infodynamics_ph@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0ffa2e44-d5e6-410d-8ca0-0ac55f6a8aa2@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>> If you need the .Net Part you must pay now extra !!!
>> And the ist an new licens mechanism that need a new MF-Server on
>> the .Net Side!!!
>>
>> At the end of the day you muat pay many money extra if you will use
>> Net Express .Net
>
> That is how MF get their dough. You really have to pay that much
> because they control the market (for Cobol that is). Fujitsu is
> perceived as the David of the Goliath.

Given the relative sizes of the companies, I can't see that...:-) Probably
true in terms of workstation COBOL, but that is a declining market anyway.
>
> But this concerns me, remember NetExpress V3.10? It's been in the
> torrent lately that there is a 'cracked' version. I do not know if
> this is true. At any rate, 'legal' user of this product will knock
> their heads off for paying for it then.

Although peer-to-peer networks like Limewire, Morpheus, and Torrent very
often can provide cracked software, there is still an argument for NOT
getting it there. People who do, are undermining the software industry as a
whole, not getting support or upgrades, and may also be downloading malware
embedded in the software.

Having said that, when vendors use their market leadership to simply rack up
the revenue, I guess people can be forgiven for resisting and looking at
other sources. I can't say I have never downloaded anything from P2P, but it
has usually been music and I can't recall doing it with software. That
doesn't make it right... :-) the music industry needs revenue just like the
software industry... I do this as a last reort when I simply can't get what
I'm looking for (usually old stuff from the 60s and 70s) and I do it very
infrequently (maybe twice a year).
>
> I got myself an evaluation copy before they provided me with and it is
> now sitting ONLY in my Pentium 3 model PC (hoping it won't crash).
> Tried installing it in my new laptop (new install, my old one broke)
> and they won't give me any license anymore, so I only used it for
> 30days.

It's crazy isn't it? Fujitsu do the same. Here are two companies in a
fragile market and they both seem intent on eroding support from the people
who are enthusiastic about their products. They are still stuck in the time
when COBOL sites had no choice. The world has changed and there are other
options. By being hostile to people who view their products favourably they
are simply pushing the user base to other options.

I'm not suggesting they should give away their .NET products, and I know
there is a lot of R & D that has to be recouped. But they are competing
(with .NET) in a market where MicroSoft will not only give you their
compilers (C#, VB, C++) and their superb IDE (Visual Studio 2008) for FREE,
but will also treat you like a valued customer even if you are just a small
or single developer. (OK, they have the money and resources to afford to do
that, but it is commendable that they would even WANT to...) It's no wonder
there are now estimated to be 64 million C# programmers in the world, with
the number increasing. .NET is definitely the future (at least for the next
decade or so). The rest of the world (both LAMP and Microsoft) are getting
into scripting with things like Ruby, PHP and other dynamic languages,
emphasis is shifting to web based services, SOA, SaaS, and Mono and .NET
are providing the level playing field to underpin it. I can write code now
and run it on Linux or Windows or MacOS. (or a Blackberry or PDA, if I'm
careful about it... :-))I could never do that with COBOL and I've have to
buy two (expensive) compilers to even consider it.
>
> I used to train developers (in banks and insurance companies/
> Philippines) locally in MFCobol using NetExpress.... but now since I
> can't receive a valid license, I think I have to stop supporting them
> as well.
>
> As Pete (Dashwood) experienced, why pay so much when you have C#
> for .Net for free. I still like Cobol, but hey...

As I have said before, attitude counts for much.

I was pushed into C# by poor support and rudeness. My major concern was how
I would leverage my existing investment in COBOL; (I needn't have
worried...). I moved reluctantly. But sometimes clouds have silver
linings... I am really thrilled that I moved when I did and they actually
did me a favour. I no longer pay hundreds of dollars a year for "support"
that is hopeless and no support at all, or so I can "enjoy" the next release
of a compiler that adds nothing to the last release (apart from bug fixes
that should never have been there in the first place). I have instant access
to a huge community that are friendly, interested, and helpful, free
training videos, and immediate access to sample code and articles. It is a
different world.

I'm still doing some work in COBOL (always for clients, not myself) and it
is really hard now to move back to a kludgy IDE that can't remember how I
want to work or what I am trying to do, makes me set up again every time I
want to debug a program, with several windows that must be clicked through
before I can get to my code, but worst of all... no Intellisense. I still
like COBOL but I realise it's limitations more and more as I think how easy
and simple it would be to do the same task in C#.

..NET applications are fantastic and I would urge all of you to go there if
you are developing applications for Workstations (Web, Desktop, or Services)
Don't be held to ransom by COBOL vendors, download a free copy of VS 2008
Express, do one of the basic online video tutorials, and have a play with
C#. It is always nice to have options.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:30:01 -0700 (PDT), Rene_Surop <infodynamics_ph@yahoo.com> wrote:

>As Pete (Dashwood) experienced, why pay so much when you have C#
>for .Net for free. I still like Cobol, but hey...

Why pay for books when some ebooks are free? I still like Camus and Conrad, but hey Arthur
Conan Doyle is cheaper and almost as good.

On Jul 26, 2:20*am, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> "Rene_Surop" <infodynamics...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0ffa2e44-d5e6-410d-8ca0-0ac55f6a8aa2@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> If you need the .Net Part you must pay now extra !!!
> >> And the ist an new licens mechanism that need a new MF-Server on
> >> the .Net Side!!!
>
> >> At the end of the day you muat pay many money extra if you will use
> >> Net Express .Net
>
> > That is how MF get their dough. You really have to pay that much
> > because they control the market (for Cobol that is). Fujitsu is
> > perceived as the David of the Goliath.
>
> Given the relative sizes of the companies, I can't see that...:-) Probably
> true in terms of workstation COBOL, but that is a declining market anyway..
>
>
>
> > But this concerns me, remember NetExpress V3.10? It's been in the
> > torrent lately that there is a 'cracked' version. I do not know if
> > this is true. At any rate, 'legal' user of this product will knock
> > their heads off for paying for it then.
>
> Although peer-to-peer networks like Limewire, Morpheus, and Torrent very
> often can provide cracked software, there is still an argument for NOT
> getting it there. People who do, are undermining the software industry asa
> whole, not getting support or upgrades, and may also be downloading malware
> embedded in the software.
>
> Having said that, when vendors use their market leadership to simply rackup
> the revenue, I guess people can be forgiven for resisting and looking at
> other sources. I can't say I have never downloaded anything from P2P, butit
> has usually been music and I can't recall doing it with software. That
> doesn't make it right... :-) *the music industry needs revenue just like the
> software industry... I do this as a last reort when I simply can't get what
> I'm looking for (usually old stuff from the 60s and 70s) and I do it very
> infrequently (maybe twice a year).
>
>
>
> > I got myself an evaluation copy before they provided me with and it is
> > now sitting ONLY in my Pentium 3 model PC (hoping it won't crash).
> > Tried installing it in my new laptop (new install, my old one broke)
> > and they won't give me any license anymore, so I only used it for
> > 30days.
>
> It's crazy isn't it? Fujitsu do the same. Here are two companies in a
> fragile market and they both seem intent on eroding support from the people
> who are enthusiastic about their products. They are still stuck in the time
> when COBOL sites had no choice. The world has changed and there are other
> options. By being hostile to people who view their products favourably they
> are simply pushing the user base to other options.
>
> I'm not suggesting they should give away their .NET products, and I know
> there is a lot of R & D that has to be recouped. But they are competing
> (with .NET) in a market where MicroSoft will not only give you their
> compilers (C#, VB, C++) and their superb IDE (Visual Studio 2008) for FREE,
> but will also treat you like a valued customer even if you are just a small
> or single developer. (OK, they have the money and resources to afford to do
> that, but it is commendable that they would even WANT to...) It's no wonder
> there are now estimated to be 64 million C# programmers in the world, with
> the number increasing. .NET is definitely the future (at least for the next
> decade or so). The rest of the world (both LAMP and Microsoft) are getting
> into scripting with things like Ruby, PHP and other dynamic languages,
> emphasis is shifting to web based *services, SOA, SaaS, and Mono and .NET
> are providing the level playing field to underpin it. I can write code now
> and run it on Linux or Windows or MacOS. (or a Blackberry or PDA, if I'm
> careful about it... :-))I could never do that with COBOL and I've have to
> buy two (expensive) compilers to even consider it.
>
>
>
> > I used to train developers (in banks and insurance companies/
> > Philippines) locally in MFCobol using NetExpress.... but now since I
> > can't receive a valid license, I think I have to stop supporting them
> > as well.
>
> > As Pete (Dashwood) experienced, why pay so much when you have C#
> > for .Net for free. I still like Cobol, but hey...
>
> As I have said before, attitude counts for much.
>
> I was pushed into C# by poor support and rudeness. My major concern was how
> I would leverage my existing investment in COBOL; (I needn't have
> worried...). I moved reluctantly. But sometimes clouds have silver
> linings... I am really thrilled that I moved when I did and they actually
> did me a favour. I no longer pay hundreds of dollars a year for "support"
> that is hopeless and no support at all, or so I can "enjoy" the next release
> of a compiler that adds nothing to the last release (apart from bug fixes
> that should never have been there in the first place). I have instant access
> to a huge community that are friendly, interested, and helpful, free
> training videos, *and immediate access to sample code and articles. It is a
> different world.
>
> I'm still doing some work in COBOL (always for clients, not myself) and it
> is really hard now to move back to a kludgy IDE that can't remember how I
> want to work or what I am trying to do, makes me set up again every time I
> want to debug a program, with several windows that must be clicked through
> before I can get to my code, but worst of all... no Intellisense. I still
> like COBOL but I realise it's limitations more and more as I think how easy
> and simple it would be to do the same task in C#.
>
> .NET applications are fantastic and I would urge all of you to go there if
> you are developing applications for Workstations (Web, Desktop, or Services)
> Don't be held to ransom by COBOL vendors, download a free copy of VS 2008
> Express, do one of the basic online video tutorials, and have a play with
> C#. It is always nice to have options.
>
> Pete.
> --
> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Yes and no....

Some companys come to me and say that the must pay ober 15 Million €
that they can use Net Express 5.1 and than the companys must migrate
the "old" software too...

That is for the most software companys normal the dead because no
company can pay so many money for nothing... (and what is the next
idea of MF? --> that is the question form the customer)

Sorry, not for nothing but for a new GUI with .NET 3.5 and VS2008...

I found a way where you can use your old cobol dlls (e.g Ne 3.0) and
Visual Studio 2008 and that for free so you can use your old programs
with e.g. WPF as a frontend. And you can let it run under 32/64
bits.... It works fine.

Because it works too on a linux/unix machine ; - )

And you can make a soft migration!

You can use your "old" frontend (e.g. Dialog System) and you can
develop parallel on a new GUI frontend (e.g. WPF) so you have no time
problems.

At the and of the day you have no problems with runtime licenses (it
is free) and you have a way where you can make a "soft" migration.

If i have time I build a converter that convert Dialog Sytem Code to
WPF Code.
(Background: I work a lot of years for Micro Focus as a leader for
training and consulting, so i know what i must do and how)

<Bernd.Riemke@riemke-it.de> wrote in message
news:b560ed52-5f5d-4ee5-98d8-4b425334bce3@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 26, 2:20 am, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> "Rene_Surop" <infodynamics...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0ffa2e44-d5e6-410d-8ca0-0ac55f6a8aa2@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> If you need the .Net Part you must pay now extra !!!
> >> And the ist an new licens mechanism that need a new MF-Server on
> >> the .Net Side!!!
>
> >> At the end of the day you muat pay many money extra if you will use
> >> Net Express .Net
>
> > That is how MF get their dough. You really have to pay that much
> > because they control the market (for Cobol that is). Fujitsu is
> > perceived as the David of the Goliath.
>
> Given the relative sizes of the companies, I can't see that...:-) Probably
> true in terms of workstation COBOL, but that is a declining market anyway.
>
>
>
> > But this concerns me, remember NetExpress V3.10? It's been in the
> > torrent lately that there is a 'cracked' version. I do not know if
> > this is true. At any rate, 'legal' user of this product will knock
> > their heads off for paying for it then.
>
> Although peer-to-peer networks like Limewire, Morpheus, and Torrent very
> often can provide cracked software, there is still an argument for NOT
> getting it there. People who do, are undermining the software industry as
> a
> whole, not getting support or upgrades, and may also be downloading
> malware
> embedded in the software.
>
> Having said that, when vendors use their market leadership to simply rack
> up
> the revenue, I guess people can be forgiven for resisting and looking at
> other sources. I can't say I have never downloaded anything from P2P, but
> it
> has usually been music and I can't recall doing it with software. That
> doesn't make it right... :-) the music industry needs revenue just like
> the
> software industry... I do this as a last reort when I simply can't get
> what
> I'm looking for (usually old stuff from the 60s and 70s) and I do it very
> infrequently (maybe twice a year).
>
>
>
> > I got myself an evaluation copy before they provided me with and it is
> > now sitting ONLY in my Pentium 3 model PC (hoping it won't crash).
> > Tried installing it in my new laptop (new install, my old one broke)
> > and they won't give me any license anymore, so I only used it for
> > 30days.
>
> It's crazy isn't it? Fujitsu do the same. Here are two companies in a
> fragile market and they both seem intent on eroding support from the
> people
> who are enthusiastic about their products. They are still stuck in the
> time
> when COBOL sites had no choice. The world has changed and there are other
> options. By being hostile to people who view their products favourably
> they
> are simply pushing the user base to other options.
>
> I'm not suggesting they should give away their .NET products, and I know
> there is a lot of R & D that has to be recouped. But they are competing
> (with .NET) in a market where MicroSoft will not only give you their
> compilers (C#, VB, C++) and their superb IDE (Visual Studio 2008) for
> FREE,
> but will also treat you like a valued customer even if you are just a
> small
> or single developer. (OK, they have the money and resources to afford to
> do
> that, but it is commendable that they would even WANT to...) It's no
> wonder
> there are now estimated to be 64 million C# programmers in the world, with
> the number increasing. .NET is definitely the future (at least for the
> next
> decade or so). The rest of the world (both LAMP and Microsoft) are getting
> into scripting with things like Ruby, PHP and other dynamic languages,
> emphasis is shifting to web based services, SOA, SaaS, and Mono and .NET
> are providing the level playing field to underpin it. I can write code now
> and run it on Linux or Windows or MacOS. (or a Blackberry or PDA, if I'm
> careful about it... :-))I could never do that with COBOL and I've have to
> buy two (expensive) compilers to even consider it.
>
>
>
> > I used to train developers (in banks and insurance companies/
> > Philippines) locally in MFCobol using NetExpress.... but now since I
> > can't receive a valid license, I think I have to stop supporting them
> > as well.
>
> > As Pete (Dashwood) experienced, why pay so much when you have C#
> > for .Net for free. I still like Cobol, but hey...
>
> As I have said before, attitude counts for much.
>
> I was pushed into C# by poor support and rudeness. My major concern was
> how
> I would leverage my existing investment in COBOL; (I needn't have
> worried...). I moved reluctantly. But sometimes clouds have silver
> linings... I am really thrilled that I moved when I did and they actually
> did me a favour. I no longer pay hundreds of dollars a year for "support"
> that is hopeless and no support at all, or so I can "enjoy" the next
> release
> of a compiler that adds nothing to the last release (apart from bug fixes
> that should never have been there in the first place). I have instant
> access
> to a huge community that are friendly, interested, and helpful, free
> training videos, and immediate access to sample code and articles. It is a
> different world.
>
> I'm still doing some work in COBOL (always for clients, not myself) and it
> is really hard now to move back to a kludgy IDE that can't remember how I
> want to work or what I am trying to do, makes me set up again every time I
> want to debug a program, with several windows that must be clicked through
> before I can get to my code, but worst of all... no Intellisense. I still
> like COBOL but I realise it's limitations more and more as I think how
> easy
> and simple it would be to do the same task in C#.
>
> .NET applications are fantastic and I would urge all of you to go there if
> you are developing applications for Workstations (Web, Desktop, or
> Services)
> Don't be held to ransom by COBOL vendors, download a free copy of VS 2008
> Express, do one of the basic online video tutorials, and have a play with
> C#. It is always nice to have options.
>
> Pete.
> --
> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Yes and no....

Some companys come to me and say that the must pay ober 15 Million €
that they can use Net Express 5.1 and than the companys must migrate
the "old" software too...

That is for the most software companys normal the dead because no
company can pay so many money for nothing... (and what is the next
idea of MF? --> that is the question form the customer)

Sorry, not for nothing but for a new GUI with .NET 3.5 and VS2008...

I found a way where you can use your old cobol dlls (e.g Ne 3.0) and
Visual Studio 2008 and that for free so you can use your old programs
with e.g. WPF as a frontend. And you can let it run under 32/64
bits.... It works fine.

[Pete]

Yes, I found that Fujitsu .DLLs can run fine under Interop services of .NET.
But I haven't tried converting PowerCOBOL to WPF. (I would if there was
money in it... :-))
[/Pete]

Because it works too on a linux/unix machine ; - )

[Pete]

Provided you are not using Windows API and limit yourself to .NET/Mono
Classes
[/Pete]


And you can make a soft migration!

You can use your "old" frontend (e.g. Dialog System) and you can
develop parallel on a new GUI frontend (e.g. WPF) so you have no time
problems.

At the and of the day you have no problems with runtime licenses (it
is free) and you have a way where you can make a "soft" migration.

[Pete]

The COBOL .dll will still need a runtime to execute, unless you convert the
compiled output to MSIL...

[/Pete]

If i have time I build a converter that convert Dialog Sytem Code to
WPF Code.

[Pete]

That's not the hard part :-) What about the interrupt driven code? You'll
translate that to WPF?
[/Pete]

(Background: I work a lot of years for Micro Focus as a leader for
training and consulting, so i know what i must do and how)

[Pete]
Knowing where you want to go and how to get there is always a good start to
any project... :-)

Good Luck!

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."