alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) (05/04/89)
Posted this under the wrong heading. Sorry... --- In article <gYK=wvy00WB7AiCG93@andrew.cmu.edu> dp22+@andrew.cmu.edu (David Bruce Pinkus) writes: > Has anybody had any success using the Multi-User version of FoxBase >with TOPS? I haven't seen the Multi-user version, but if it can be done, >I'd appreciate some advice/info. TOPS does not support AFP, and will therefore not support Fox. In fact, as far as I can determine from lengthy discussions with TOPS tech types, TOPS does not support any kind of byte-range or record locking whatsoever. (This is why 4D tends to crash more frequently under TOPS than AppleShare or single-user: It knows it's not getting AFP so it does some bogus page-locking instead.) Fox chose not to do it at all rather than do it wrong. As far as I know TOPS is the ONLY file server product for the Mac for which this is true (of course MacServe and SilverServer, which are both volume servers, don't support it either). TOPS claims that they will support the byte-range locking features of AFP by the end of the year. This would make them compatible with FoxBase. It is my carefully considered opinion that TOPS is in the same position now that MacServe was in three years ago: They currently dominate the market, and they're throwing it all away through marketing stupidity and bad technological decisions. I expect to see TOPS dwindle to a small minority of the market within 24 months. Followups to comp.protocols.appletalk. --- Alexis Rosen alexis@ccnysci.{uucp,bitnet} alexis@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (last resort)
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (05/05/89)
In article <1866@ccnysci.UUCP> alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) writes: > >TOPS does not support AFP, and will therefore not support Fox. In fact, as far >as I can determine from lengthy discussions with TOPS tech types, TOPS does >not support any kind of byte-range or record locking whatsoever. This is false. TOPS supported byte range locking HFS calls before any other developer, including Apple. The stub calls included in HFS are of TOPS (actually Centram) design. >It is my carefully considered opinion that TOPS is in the same position now >that MacServe was in three years ago: They currently dominate the market, >and they're throwing it all away through marketing stupidity and bad >technological decisions. I expect to see TOPS dwindle to a small minority >of the market within 24 months. It has more to do with the fact that utter confusion has reigned at Sun for years. They really are not managing to maintain consistent policies faced with such incredibly rapid growth. There is also a widely whispered but unconfirmed idea that Sun bought TOPS in order to suppress it. After all, they want NFS to rule the world, not TOPS. So far, TOPS under Sun has not come out with any major new products, and has killed several: TOPS for VMS was killed just as it was about to go into beta, TOPS Terminal was killed when it was ready for release, and the stand-alone Cheshire server was killed recently after a major development effort that from all reports was proceeding very well. Furthermore, Sun's promises to incorporate TOPS technology for microcomputers into new versions of NFS have been consistently broken. They've also seemed to have a policy of driving away the best people, whether in marketing, engineering, or QA. Only Bernie LaCroute knows for sure, and he's not telling.... -- Tim Maroney, Consultant, Eclectic Software, sun!hoptoad!tim "There are no Famous People on the net. Only some of us with bigger mouths than others." -- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, The Roach