singh@dalcs.UUCP (Sarbjit Singh) (07/16/88)
Hi. This is my first posting so pardon any blunders. Remember? You were at this stage once too. We are contemplating connecting over 50 PC's (and XT's, etc.) over thinwire Ethernet to a VAX. In addition to normal terminal capabilities, we want the ability to make VAX directories appear as virtual drives on the PC. We are now in the process of evaluating RAF (DATABILITY Software Systems) which includes both features. This program involves first logging on to the VAX/ VMS system, initiating a program called RAFPC, and exiting to the PC. I wish to ask fellow netlanders 3 questions. 1. Is anyone else using a similar setup (i.e. RAF) 2. Any pro's and con's of using MICOM's NI5210-8 board? (they are inexpensive) 3. Any suggestions? In return, I am at your disposal for information that I have learned so far. Sarbjit Singh Dalhousie Univ. 1-902-424-3399
pst@comdesign.uucp (Paul Traina) (07/19/88)
From article <2953@dalcs.UUCP>, by singh@dalcs.UUCP (Sarbjit Singh): > I wish to ask fellow netlanders 3 questions. > > 1. Is anyone else using a similar setup (i.e. RAF) yes, we do > 2. Any pro's and con's of using MICOM's NI5210-8 board? (they are inexpensive) we use the NI5010 card, and now the WD8003 (Etherlink Plus), the WD gives roughly the same performance, and is cheaper. > 3. Any suggestions? RAF is great. Datability's copy protection scheme for the PC's is an administrator's nightmare. We hate them for that, but we love the product. Over all I give RAF the highest reccomendations for linking PC's to VMS. However, Datability should be shot for their stupid copyprotection which has wasted more time and is easily defeated (copy2pc the disk first). -- work: home: comdesign!pst@pyramid.com pst@ai.ai.mit.edu {uunet|pyramid}!comdesign!pst ...!ucbvax!ucsbcsl!nessus!pst pst@sbitp.bitnet
wacey@paul.rutgers.edu ( ) (07/19/88)
The 5210 uses less internal memory for buffers and tends to be faster. iain wacey