kemp@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Stuart R. Kemp) (05/09/89)
Have you used or had any experience with either of the LAN's from Lantastic, or MainLan? If so, I would appreciate your comments about them, and anything that you consider to be a good or bad point. Please respond via EMAIL. Thanks, -Stuart Kemp kemp@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu
timothym@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Timothy D Margeson) (05/09/89)
Hi, We tried both, kept one. We chose LANtastic. The server side uses about 60k of RAM, the remotes only use 2.5k of RAM. Remotes can get files from the server, redirect print jobs to the server, along with several other small niceties. Plus all the software I've tried has worked (like DOS XCOPY A: H: where H: is a redirected disk on the server). MAINLAN had problems, like it require 58k on each machine to redirect print output, 38k to be able to get files from a server. The server required 160k be used up! MAINLAN also had problems running some code (like DOS XCOPY). LANtastic seems better behaved all around. One real suggestion though, don't fiddle with things like TAB SIZE in the printer configuration - it will crash graphics sent across the network (the default 0 leaves TAB chars intact, 8 replaces TABS with 8 spaces - HP Laserjet data has a TAB at the beginning of each line). LANtastic throughput is a little better than MAINLAN also. Good luck... -- Tim Margeson (206)253-5240 PO Box 3500 d/s C1-022 @@ 'Who said that?' Vancouver, WA. 98668 e-mail replies to: timothym@tekigm2.UUCP or timothym@tekigm2.TEK.COM