It appears as if GoFaster both legal and effective. OTOH, it also appears as if IBM is free to release periodic PTFs that make sufficient changes to its internal structures to render GoFaster inoperative at any time.

You’re free to weigh the risks and decide.

Tom

Prior to GoFaster there was another product that did the same thing. As I recall, IBM sued and won to have the product pulled from the market.

Our IBM business partner said that such products could effect support if IBM learns it is running on your machine. Of course, he probably has to say that. However, over the years we have found that he is very straight with us.

Hello,

I was just trying to let people know about GoFaster. As Tpinky has said, ITjungle has coverd our product recently. GoFaster works and has worked. Many people have been using it and there hasn’t been any problems.

Glad to hear you ordered a trial.

We haven’t had any customer loosing IBM support for using it. But obviously, some need to say so and make believe so.

Ricardo Lopez
American Top Tools.
http://www.gofaster.us

As I recall, IBM sued and won to have the product pulled from the market.

I don’t recall that IBM “won”. My understanding is that it was an out-of-court settlement. I believe that their was settlement to stop selling the product, probably for a significant payment in return. GoFaster is likely the same product or a basic derivative under a different company.

In any case, CFINT is essentially only relevant for interactive cycles. Since the system has long supported execution of programs in batch, including sending and receiving parms from interactive programs (e.g., the Call Program (QxdaCallProgramEDRS) API, or simple stored procedures, or other methods), I’ve never seen a lot of use in products like GoFaster myself.

Tom

Here’s a link to a story regarding the Fast400 settlement:

Fast400 Article

Hi,
Obviously Tom hasn’t seen much use in programs like GoFaster, which is respectable.
So respectable as quite a few thousands of system administrators that have purchased GoFaster since 2004.

As user Tpinky said history was evaluated again in 2010
http://www.itjungle.com/tfh/tfh042202-story04.html so why come out with articles from 2004. That is history. And history says many installations are very happy with GoFaster, and yes we do sell it. Is there something bad about selling software? Obviously you can always try to hire a system programmer that con do what GoFaster does for you and he will have also the power to make it work or maybe not. GoFaster is still working and many companies are taking advantage of it. It is a free choice and it is no scam.
Your choice, our pleasure to keep customers satisfied.

Ricardo Lopez
American Top Tools
http://www.gofaster.us

Sorry the current link in ItJungle

http://www.itjungle.com/fhs/fhs010510-story02.html

Mr. Lopez, I can’t speak for others here, but I would appreciate it if you desisted in your attempts to hijack this forum for your marketing. You are contributing nothing to the discussion and to my way of thinking making your product less attractive with every post. There are other vendors who participate in this forum without trying to make it into another advertising venue. If you can not follow their example, please recuse yourself.

Mr. Lopez’s response was to a question about this specific product.
The response seemed appropriate to me.
It provided a useful update to this question.

Phil

I for one, agree with philpl1jb.

Phil, I would agree if he had stopped at his first response. The second was an attack on those who don’t see a particular need for his product.

Especially since the vendor relationship was fully disclosed, I have no problem with Mr. Lopez’s post. There is no doubt that a product like GoFaster can help systems that are otherwise constrained by CFINT.

Similarly, there is no doubt that the use of such a product may restrict what service might be applied to a system using such a product. Most IBM PTFs in recent years have included this warning:

• Application of this PTF may disable or render ineffective programs that use system memory addresses not generated by the IBM translator, including programs that circumvent control technology designed to limit interactive capacity to purchased levels. This PTF may be a prerequisite for future PTFs. By applying this PTF you authorize and agree to the foregoing.

Whether or not any PTF actually affects product behavior is probably known to the vendor and information about it should be available from their support group. Decisions are always up to the customer.

Tom

Splat
The intensity of your response is uncharacteristic of the body of work you’ve amassed here.
Perhaps you know something more about this issue, this product, Mr. Lopez, IBM’s position, perhaps you had a bad experience with this or something like it in the past.
Perhaps you feel that this product is immoral, that it steals cycles from IBM that the user didn’t pay for.
I hope for your sake that this was an isolated incident. Hostility should not play a significant role in your life. Maybe it’s time for an intervention.
Phil