Comparison Matrix  Click on any item to view... Contents + Introduction + Concepts Product Positioning Comparison Matrix ScreenSurfing vs. ScreenScraping HTML Challenges HTML Advantages HTML and/or Java? + Operations + Customization + SurferScript Guide + ScreenSurfer Tutorial The following tables position ScreenSurfer and its capabilities with other approaches that address the Host Access Web Gateway requirement. These tables have been produced by the ScreenSurfer competitive analysis team, so they obviously less objective than an independent appraisal :) Categories The categories included are: SS- ScreenSurfer JT- Java-based Terminal Emulators TN- TN3270/TN5250 Emulators (Java and platform-specific) XT- ActiveX Terminal Emulators XS- ActiveX Server components with Active Server Pages RT- Repository-based high-level information access tools Ratings Ratings are as follows: na: Not applicable ns: Not supported P: Poor G: Good E: Excellent Requirement SS JT TN XT XS RT Pass-through emulation E E E ns G* ns Existing 3270/5250 data entry users G E E E na na Existing 3270/5250 information workers E G G G na na Casual 3270/5250 application users E P G G E* na Untrained users-external users E P P P G G Browser Integration E P P P E E Replace terminal emulators E E E ns G* ns Thin Client Design E P P P E E Universal browser support E G P P E G Ease of simple screen enhancements E P ns P G P URL-based information access E ns ns ns E* E Server Hardware costs (performance) E na na na G P * = When using SSurfer.ASPRequest Component for ASP. Competitive products don't provide granular passthrough based on our research, and would generally score lower in this category.