michaels@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM (Michael D. Smith) (02/16/91)
Greetings, We are about to network 10 PCs and have no knowledge of PC networking. Our some-time programmer also has his own business and sells the Lantastic network system. When I asked him about the Novell network, he replied that the Lantastic system is far better than Novell. We are somewhat trapped into buying the Lantastic system, since this is what our "expert" recommends. But I don't feel right about just taking his advice since he is obviously biased and because the Lantastic system will cost alot more. The network will be heavily used by the PCs as they access a database. 1. How would you compare Novell and Lantastic? 2. What has been your experience using Lantastic? Thanks for the help, Michael michaels@sail.labs.tek.com
infocenter@urz.unibas.ch (02/16/91)
In article <5233@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM>, michaels@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM (Michael D. Smith) writes: > Lantastic system is far better than Novell. > > We are somewhat trapped into buying the Lantastic system, > since this is what our "expert" recommends. But I don't > feel right about just taking his advice since he is obviously > biased and because the Lantastic system will cost alot more. of course your 'expert' is biased. Two things: 1 get information from journals, build your own meaning from datasheets etc. but don't forget one thing: 2. somebody has to manage your network. If it is the guy that knows Lantastic ... use his knowledge, take it! bye .................................................................... Didi ****************************************************************************** * Universitas Basiliensis InfoCenter * ******************************************************************************
katz@cs.ucf.edu (Katz) (02/17/91)
infocenter@urz.unibas.ch writes: >In article <5233@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM>, michaels@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM (Michael D. Smith) writes: >> Lantastic system is far better than Novell. >> >> We are somewhat trapped into buying the Lantastic system, >> since this is what our "expert" recommends. But I don't >> feel right about just taking his advice since he is obviously >> biased and because the Lantastic system will cost alot more. ____WHOA!!!!!!!!_________ Somebody is snowing you BIG TIME. A Novell system will cost you FAR MORE than will a lantastic system. A 10 user LAN (assuming you already have the 10 PC's) will cost you about $8000 with Novell 2.15, 10 generic ethernet cards, 386-25 network server w/100 Meg drive. A similar lantastic system will cost about $4500 for the same setup. Both LAN's will cost you the same to add on additional nodes. Of course, the Novell software is better than Lantastic's.... But, whoever is telling you Lantastic is alot more than Novell is probably making a lot of money off of you. The other reason a Novell LAN costs more is that in order to be Novell authorized you have to invest a few thousand dollars. A lantastic dealer has to invest $0.00. -- Dave Katz katz@eola.cs.ucf.edu :
ela@bdgltd.UUCP (Ed Ackerman Programmer) (02/17/91)
In article <5233@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM> michaels@sail.labs.tek.com writes: >Greetings, > >The network will be heavily used by the PCs as they access a database. > >1. How would you compare Novell and Lantastic? > >2. What has been your experience using Lantastic? > Let me answer the questions that I can. I have NOT used Lantastic so I have no opinion on it. What I have heard is just that stuff that I have heard and I can not make a judgment one way or another. What I can comment on is Novell Netware, both the 2.15 and the 386 versions. As the System Administrator for a company that has 12 Novell networks installed I can say that they work, and they work well. We have a variety of applications running from purchased to 'home grown' And they all work, some have required a moderate amount of tweeking. Those were ones that we wrote as single user and migrated to the network. What you use as a database engine should dictate what network you should use. Novell has a very nice database (Btrieve) Applications that use it can go from single user to a network with very minor modifications. dBase III requires more work, and I cant comment on any others. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Ackerman | It is impossible to make anything bdgltd!ela@dsi.com or ...!dsinc!bdgltd!ela| foolproof beacause fools are #include <StdDisclaimer> | SO ingenious!
wood@Software.Mitel.COM (Dale Wood) (02/19/91)
In article <5233@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM> michaels@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM (Michael D. Smith) writes: > Lantastic system is far better than Novell. > since this is what our "expert" recommends. But I don't > feel right about just taking his advice since he is obviously > biased and because the Lantastic system will cost alot more. > 2. What has been your experience using Lantastic? I have used no other PC LAN Network except for the Lantastic network adaptor, so a comparing I will not do. Three PC's connected in a doctors office, each accessing client records. (Traffic is not what I would consider to be high.) My opinion is that the system offers the biggest bang for the doller. In trainning the staff, there was no problem using the software NET and NET_MGR. I have been very happy with the product for what I and this other office have done with it. ...Dale Wood wood@Software.Mitel.COM
craig@phobos.cis.ksu.edu (Stuart A Craig ) (02/22/91)
wood@Software.Mitel.COM (Dale Wood) writes: >In article <5233@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM> michaels@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM (Michael D. Smith) writes: >> Lantastic system is far better than Novell. > > since this is what our "expert" recommends. But I don't > > feel right about just taking his advice since he is obviously > > biased and because the Lantastic system will cost alot more. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Says who? Lantastic systems are usuallyu much less that a compariable Novel setup. - Stuart Craig internet: craig@phobos.cis.ksu.edu bitnet: sac@ksuvm
nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) (04/15/91)
In article <322@bdgltd.UUCP> ela@.UUCP (Ed Ackerman Programmer) writes: >What you use as a database engine should dictate what network you should >use. Novell has a very nice database (Btrieve) Applications that use it >can go from single user to a network with very minor modifications. >dBase III requires more work, and I cant comment on any others. I inherited responsibility for an orphaned dBase III app that had been compiled under Clipper 87. I spent about 3 days adding record locking to 6 programs; I guess it was a lot of work, but the results have been better than expected. As a single-user application on an XT, this critical database was almost never backed up. Now it's part of the regular server backup. >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Ed Ackerman | It is impossible to make anything >bdgltd!ela@dsi.com or ...!dsinc!bdgltd!ela| foolproof beacause fools are >#include <StdDisclaimer> | SO ingenious! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Absolutely true. Nathan Engle Software Evangelist Indiana University Dept of Psychology nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu