ewillis@cs.tamu.edu (Edward Dean Willis) (02/26/91)
I know that the PC-TCP package from FTP works fairly well (not counting the NFS part, which barely works...) but it costs too much. According to Jim Worley, the current (2-25-91) price for the base package capable of working with a packet driver is $360!!! The bug fix for the version of PC-TCP+ that we bought last year (and which never worked...) is $90 ! I bought a whole TCP-IP and X Window package from Locus for a lot less. The other bitchy part is it should be a free maintenance fix. We registered, have logged complaints, etc. and never even received a postcard from these people! Are these prices in line with what the rest of you have been paying? How do they compare to other commercial packages, such as B&W ? I do not mind paying reasonable prices for software, but I don't want to pay more for a network program for one PC than I pay for UNIX and TCP-IP and NFS and all that for a room full of RISC machines. I stongly suspect that if this is the way that FTP is going to price their products, that they are going to run themselves right out of business. How about someone coming out with an application-compatible product and pricing it right (say, $100/machine). Would it go over?
ewillis@cs.tamu.edu (Edward Dean Willis) (02/27/91)
Yesterday I posted a set of questions about the price strategy of FTP Incs. "PC-TCP" product line and the accompanying marketing and support. This was accompanied by a set of complaints about the level of support I have received, and the single-copy pricing. Enough of you have mailed me about it that I am posting a summary of comments. 1) The software pricing is competitive. Single copy rates are too high, but most users consider the large site licenses as attractive options. The bigger the site, the lower the price. Really big sites may get prices down to about 1/4 of the retail single-copy price. 2) The "software that never worked" was the NFS component, InterDrive. The version I have has some distinct problems running with MS Windows. FTP has released a new version, which by all reports works OK with windows. They are providing it as a bug fix due to our reported problems. The public upgrade is about $30. I just wish they had notified me when the new version became available (see 3). I retain some reservations about their response to our original report, but that was almost a year ago. 3) FTP has not habitually mailed out update notices or announcements of new products. They have announced plans for doing so on a periodic basis. Personally, I would like to see flyers as each major release comes out, including a list of bug fixes and enhancements. FTP is doing an email list for academic users, of which I was not aware. 4) Several users mentioned some problems with the socket library, which provides at best limited support for newer compilers. I have not used this optional part of the software. 5) Most of the users who responded consider the PC-TCP package very reliable and use it as a "reference standard". Several commended FTP Incs. work on establishing the packet driver standard. I think that the base package is pretty good stuff. I just wish it were under the $250 mark so that we could buy it without having to go through state purchasing. Overall, the responses were generally favorable. It is good to see a company with loyal customers. I suspect that the customers would be even more loyal if better informed as to updates, bug fixes, and new releases.
ljt@sppy00.UUCP (TOMS LAURA) (02/27/91)
In article <12607@helios.TAMU.EDU>, ewillis@cs.tamu.edu (Edward Dean Willis) writes: > I know that the PC-TCP package from FTP works fairly well (not counting > the NFS part, which barely works...) but it costs too much. I am now wrapping up an evaluation of TCP/IP for DOS products and this is the package I am recommending we use. InterDrive, the NFS part, is quite functional but we did find several problems in the original version. The newest versions are PC/TCP 2.05 and InterDrive 1.10, at least as far as I know. I can't say that's it's completely bulletproof but it's no less stable than SUN's PC-NFS and it's a good bit more flexible. > Are these prices in line with what the rest of you have been paying? How > do they compare to other commercial packages, such as B&W ? It's roughly the same price as SUN's PC-NFS, I'm not sure about B&W and Wollongong. What we found with the latter two packages was that the software was so buggy and unstable that it was essentially unusable. I posted a complaint to this newsgroup and didn't hear a word back from either company (both of which post to this group regularly). > I stongly suspect that if this is the way that FTP is going to price their > products, that they are going to run themselves right out of business. I think their pricing is in keeping with the other companies, but their software is more stable than most and more flexible than PC-NFS. I won't knock the latter on user-friendliness though, it was tops in that regard. If you're trying to save money you might check into Wisc-Ware's MD-DOS which was developed at the University of Maryland. It requires its own server running on the UNIX side which we couldn't even get to compile. I called the only number I could find and got a recorder. After several tries I got through to a person who gave me an email address for the student who wrote the server. NOT the style of customer support we need in this environment! But, I believe the software was only $200 a copy. Best of luck finding a cheap, reliable product! :=) -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Laura Toms ...!osu-cis!sppy00!ljt - - Online Computer Library Center, Dublin, Ohio (614) 761-5016 - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) (02/27/91)
The summary of responses to this line of discussion could be said about any company and any client-base. Unfortunately it has been my experience that few software companies comply with such simple demands. Again from personal experience, to be fair to the company one must consider the exorbitant cost of mailing out notices and disk to users. Aldus' (i.e. PageMaker 4.0) recent announcement containing upgrade pricing seems to acknowledge this cost (i.e. they charge a subscription fee for upgrades, other than new versions). I would be content in accessing on-line information as long as I don't have to pay to call the companies private BBS (e.g. I want access via INTERNET/BITNET to their INTERNET or BITNET or COMPUSERVE etc. bulletin board). It would be nice if patches and executables or libraries were available via FTP or e-mail (thus eliminating the cost of paper mail distribution and management to/for a large portion of their clients). Either a subscription fee with guarenteed delivery of upgrades and notices and/or on-line access to notices and patches would be better than uncertainty and the required amount of pestering to get information. barry ps This line of though applies to mergers and acquisitions. For example; we have Excelan's LAN WorkPlace with TCP/IP and Socket Libraries. They were purchased (Excelan) by Novell a while back. Though I read about it in the financial newspapers Novell never "welcomed" me (their client) into the family. Now I see Novell is actively marketing LAN WorkPlace as their very own. I would like to see a Windows 3.0 specific upgrade to the product line. One may in fact exist. I am left the task of hunting down sales reps using old (Excelan) phone numbers. If they gave me a call they'de have a sure sale (a la captive audiences, having locked in on Excelan hardware), instead of a disgruntled client. (my opinions!) -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Barry B. Floyd \\\ barry_floyd@mts.rpi.edu | | Manager Information Systems - HR \\\ usere9w9@rpitsmts | +-Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--------------------troy, ny 12180-+
jbvb@FTP.COM ("James B. Van Bokkelen") (02/28/91)
Francie and I usually mention version numbers when we discuss bug fixes or enhancements in postings to this and other lists. However, most of the regulars here saw Bill Yundt's posting late last year; There is disagreement at the highest levels about the exact definition of "appropriate use" for the Internet, and I'm pretty sure that posting the Release Notes for our new versions here would draw fire from somewhere. We could set up a public "pctcp" list, but even this is in the gray area. I have gone so far as to send "new release features and bug-fixes" postings to an academically-based list dedicated to our LANWatch network monitoring product. I suppose I shouldn't complain, because after all, there are many things I like about being out where not everything is cut-and-dried... As far as pricing goes, one could divide the product up so that the basic applications cost less, and things like mail or network backup were add-ons. Sun and TWG have done this, but from what I hear, not everyone is pleased. We've kept prices more-or-less the same since we began in 1986, but every new release has had major features added. Also, it's part of our philosophy to push advancements like distributed mail protocols or automatic configuration via BOOTP, which works better if everyone gets the feature. Why pay when there is freeware? Well, a support group is one thing, but another is that a commercial company can hire people to do hard things (put the protocol stack in a TSR, write an RFC 1001/1002 NETBIOS or a DOS I/O redirector) that appear to beyond the scope of most of the plans people have for the non-commercial packages. Maintaining freeware is usually a labor of love, and many of the laborers have burned out or gotten their degrees and moved on. I respect and appreciate their contribution, because it all advances networking in general, but I do see them as addressing a different specific need than we do. If anyone has specific comments on "bundled vs. unbundled", send them to my "reply-to" address above; I won't summarize to the list but they may affect our future plans. James B. VanBokkelen, President 26 Princess St., Wakefield, MA 01880 FTP Software Inc. voice: (617) 246-0900 fax: (617) 246-0901
PIRARD%vm1.ulg.ac.be@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Andr'e PIRARD) (03/01/91)
On Tue, 26 Feb 91 17:33:52 GMT Edward Dean Willis said: >... >5) Most of the users who responded consider the PC-TCP package very >reliable and use it as a "reference standard". Several commended >FTP Incs. work on establishing the packet driver standard. I think >that the base package is pretty good stuff. I just wish it were under >the $250 mark so that we could buy it without having to go through >state purchasing. Many commercial products build on the FTP Inc's stack. And I wish more public domain software did use their socket library too, at least as an option, instead of each including their own TCP code. On one hand, buying only the kernel is more affordable. On the other, the PC is badly in need of some house cleaning with a standard. See the ease of installing MacTCP administratively, then letting the user install the application he chooses. DESQview/X builds on PC/TCP, for one. In the process, they've managed to write a front end of the kernel to allow *multitasking* of PC/TCP compliant applications under plain DESQview (It's distributed for test, but I haven't tried it yet due to problems with PC/TCP's reseller, not FTP Inc.). If this can be done for Windows too, once for all, wouldn't it be lovely networking? I let the discussion open, though. Is there another socket interface candidate for a PC standard? Andr'e PIRARD SEGI, Univ. de Li`ege B26 - Sart Tilman B-4000 Li`ege 1 (Belgium) pirard@vm1.ulg.ac.be or PIRARD%BLIULG11.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
jbvb@FTP.COM ("James B. Van Bokkelen") (03/05/91)
I think you've gotten your numbers wrong, but otherwise your complaints are legitimate - we're working on all of them. The PC/TCP kernel takes up about 75Kb by default (v2.05) and the IDRIVE TSR about 50Kb by default (v1.1), so the total is around 125Kb. Sun's total is around 80Kb, and it can't be unloaded from the keyboard. Memory managers like 386-to-the-Max or QEMM work with most DOS TCP/IP TSRs, ours included. Nobody has EMS support yet, that I know of. If you're using Packet Drivers or NDIS drivers, one of our distributions can support most of the Ethernet cards available (and some 802.5 cards that have NDIS drivers). James B. VanBokkelen 26 Princess St., Wakefield, MA 01880 FTP Software Inc. voice: (617) 246-0900 fax: (617) 246-0901
pasquale@sgl (Pasquale Leone) (03/06/91)
In article <9103041609.AA12042@ftp.com> jbvb@ftp.com writes: > >The PC/TCP kernel takes up about 75Kb by default (v2.05) and the IDRIVE TSR >about 50Kb by default (v1.1), so the total is around 125Kb. Sun's total is >around 80Kb, and it can't be unloaded from the keyboard. Memory managers >like 386-to-the-Max or QEMM work with most DOS TCP/IP TSRs, ours included. >Nobody has EMS support yet, that I know of. If you're using Packet Drivers wrong. Beam&Whiteside will load its buffers into ems. And just for comparison the cost of the B&W tcp+nfs remote disk stuff is about 50kbytes. I can't tell you the exact number now since the machine I am on is not networked. I will post the exact the exact numbers if there is interest. pasquale@sgl.ists.ca
erick@sunee.waterloo.edu (Erick Engelke) (03/07/91)
In article <19799@ists.ists.ca> pasquale@sgl.ists.ca (Pasquale Leone) writes: >And just for comparison the cost of the B&W tcp+nfs remote disk stuff >is about 50kbytes. I can't tell you the exact number now since the > For interest sake, the demo copy I received from B&W used the following amounts of ram. ethdev.sys 26096 bytes - maps services to packet driver tcpip.sys 19856 bytes - their kernal that is 45952 bytes lost from the config.sys! bwrpc.com 3248 bytes - the remote procedure call handler bwnfs.com 23152 bytes - the nfs handler with 1k read/write sizes The ram cost comes to 72,352 bytes on my machine plus the size of the packet driver. Erick -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Erick Engelke Watstar Computer Network Watstar Network Guy University of Waterloo Erick@Development.Watstar.UWaterloo.ca (519) 885-1211 Ext. 2965
pasquale@sgl (Pasquale Leone) (03/08/91)
In article <1991Mar6.172758.5736@sunee.waterloo.edu> erick@sunee.waterloo.edu (Erick Engelke) writes: >In article <19799@ists.ists.ca> pasquale@sgl.ists.ca (Pasquale Leone) writes: >>And just for comparison the cost of the B&W tcp+nfs remote disk stuff >>is about 50kbytes. I can't tell you the exact number now since the >> > >For interest sake, the demo copy I received from B&W used the following >amounts of ram. > ethdev.sys 26096 bytes - maps services to packet driver > tcpip.sys 19856 bytes - their kernal > that is 45952 bytes lost from the config.sys! > bwrpc.com 3248 bytes - the remote procedure call handler > bwnfs.com 23152 bytes - the nfs handler with 1k read/write > sizes >The ram cost comes to 72,352 bytes on my machine plus the size of the packet >driver. > >Erick This is the cost on my machine wilth expanded memory ethdev.sys 13600 bytes - maps services to packet driver tcpip.sys 14272 bytes - their kernal that is 27872 bytes lost from the config.sys bwrpc.com 2736 bytes - the remote procedure call handler bwnfs.com 22480 bytes - the nfs handler with 1k read/4k write sizes ------ 53088 bytes! ethdev.sys is much smaller on my machine because I have it load its buffers in expanded memory. The other drivers also appear to be a bit smaller on my setup then yours. Maybe we are using different versions/updates of the software. Please email any responses pasquale@sgl.ists.ca
beame@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Beame) (03/12/91)
In article <1991Mar6.172758.5736@sunee.waterloo.edu> erick@sunee.waterloo.edu (Erick Engelke) writes: >In article <19799@ists.ists.ca> pasquale@sgl.ists.ca (Pasquale Leone) writes: >>And just for comparison the cost of the B&W tcp+nfs remote disk stuff >>is about 50kbytes. I can't tell you the exact number now since the >> > >For interest sake, the demo copy I received from B&W used the following >amounts of ram. > ethdev.sys 26096 bytes - maps services to packet driver > tcpip.sys 19856 bytes - their kernal > that is 45952 bytes lost from the config.sys! > bwrpc.com 3248 bytes - the remote procedure call handler > bwnfs.com 23152 bytes - the nfs handler with 1k read/write > sizes >The ram cost comes to 72,352 bytes on my machine plus the size of the packet >driver. > >Erick > >-- >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Erick Engelke Watstar Computer Network >Watstar Network Guy University of Waterloo >Erick@Development.Watstar.UWaterloo.ca (519) 885-1211 Ext. 2965 Some notes should be made here: ethdev.sys is about 6-7K plus user defined buffer space. In the numbers above, the user has selected 20K of buffer space. We find that most applications can run with about 10K of buffer space. This reduces the memory require to 62,352. Also there is an error in the number for TCPIP.SYS, the actual amount of memory required is 15968 bytes reducing the total bytes by 3888. (it should be noted that when driver sizes are calculated, the last driver loaded in config.sys usually has an incorrect size associated with it. I always load ansi.sys last in my config.sys to determine the dirver sizes). Thus the size for the above configuration is: 58464 bytes. This number is also dependant on the particular ethernet adaptor used. - Carl Beame Beame & Whiteside Software Ltd.
ctw@aero.org (Charles T. Wolverton) (03/13/91)
In article <19799@ists.ists.ca> Pasquale Leone) writes: > >wrong. Beam&Whiteside will load its buffers into ems. >And just for comparison the cost of the B&W tcp+nfs remote disk stuff >is about 50kbytes. Which helps not in the least unless they respond to product enquiries. I am zero for three in that arena. -chas *** Charles T. Wolverton ***** Aerospace Corporation *** *** ctw@aero.org ***** P.O. Box 92957 M1-023 *** *** (213) 336-5204 ***** Los Angeles, CA 90009 ***