From: makinc@hhcs.gov.au (Carl Makin)
Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.desktop.pathworks
Subject: RE: Pathworks vs Novell
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:19:04 +1100
Organization: Aust. Dept. Health, Housing and Community Services

In article <00963734.171249E0.6965@VULCAN.CBA.OHIOU.EDU>, chiam@VULCAN.CBA.OHIOU.EDU (Ta Fuh Chiam) writes:

>>   I agreed with Miguel that Pathworks and Banyan are far more superior
>>than Novell in terms of WAN corporate wide networking as they have more
>>networking capabilities.

Like what?  Please explain what "networking" capabilities you are
referring to!

Novell ODI/TCP/IP supports terminal sessions over TCP/IP as well
as FTP which are the equivelants to SETHOST and NFT.  There is
portable Novell which will run on your Vax/VMS host and provide
the equivelant of file services.  You can run Novell TCP/IP on
your file server and support NFS mounting of the Novell file
servers' disks on any platform that supports NFS.  You can link
two Novell file servers via TCP/IP and  both servers are visible
to all Novell clients.

There is no functionality inherant in Pathworks, which after all
is Microsoft Lan Manager over Decnet, which isn't available in
Novell.  It's add-on products such as Teamlinks and Mailworks
which make Pathworks even remotely acceptable.  

The Department I work for evaluated Novell, Pathworks and Banyan
as NOSs for the standard LAN within our organisation.  We
eventually chose Pathworks.  The evaluation team stated that
Pathworks was significantly slower than the other two NOSs,
consumed signficantly more PC and server resources and initially
recommended Novell 3.11, however there was then an additional
requirement placed on them.  The NOS had to support access to the
Department's  All-In-1 file cabinets.  Digital rushed us a
version of the Teamlinks software which sorta did the job. 
Teamlinks, however isn't compatable with anything other than
Pathworks so the political decision was made to go Pathworks.

> If you need the WAN capability, then PATHWORKS is a better product and the
> right solution.

Garbage.  Novell IPX is routable in a WAN environment and many
third party Brouters currently support IPX.  Again, what do you
mean by a WAN capability.
  
>>    In terms of printing, Pathworks boast of able to print Freelance, Lotus
>>and other PC software files in LN03/LN06 DEClaser printer that are
>>connected to the terminal server but practically this is a bunch of
>>craps as the printing on these printer is extremely slow and we face
>>a lot of truncation problems related to it. DEC Singapore was
>>not able to help us on this and admit that the printing emulation
>>software (which DEC acquire from a third party) was not effective on this.
  
> I think "boast" and "crap" is a little too much here. :-)

Maybe the language is a little harsh but the facts are right. 
Pathworks printing is garbage.  You might be alright if you have
Dec printers but if you buy something else you are immediately 
pushing the doo doo uphill.  We're trying to print to Gestetner
Laser Printers, both HP LaserJet II+ emulation and Postscript. 
The LaserJet II+ emulation printers work reasonably well but
they are slow as we have them connected to terminal servers  but
the postscript printers are almost totally useless.  We can't
even get reliable printing to them from VMS!  We also have some
Macintoshes on the network so we have bought Pathworks for Mac
1.1.  We've had some success in driving these printers via
Pathworks for Mac created queues, as Apple LaserWriter IIs but
it's not reliable.

We hook the Postscript printers up to the OS/2 file servers. 
They are almost as slow as the terminal servers (although there
was a fix for slow printing on the net a couple of days ago that
might fix that, I've yet to try it.) and, for some unknown
reason, the printer drivers keep dropping out of the queue and
the queue stops.  You have to delete and re-define the queue to
get it going again.

In fact OS/2 files servers are a severe pain in the butt anyway. 
You can't change your password on them remotely unless you are
running the enhanced re-director, but then you lose the ability
to use the login command to login as a user to use your VMS
account's home directory as a file service.  Inter-platform
operability?, Pah.
  
>>   Last - the server cost for Novell is much cheaper than a DEC VAXstation.
  
> Not necessary true any more. The prices for Vaxstations have dropped.

Yeah, right.  That $7000 VaxStation 4000 VLC that will support 30
Pathworks users loading applications and Windows off the network
against that $4000 486 with 16 bit ethernet card that will
support between 50 and 100 Novell users doing the same.  

I have a document from Digital which states that the Pathworks
user limit for a user that has all their files on a VMS file
server and loads the applications and Windows from the server, on
a VAX 9410 (40 VUPS, over 6 times faster than a 4000 VLC) is 90. 
Thats $1 million Australian dollars for your 100 user file
server.  

> Furthermore, there is no licensing cost for a PATHWORKS server, only cost for
> your PC clients. Cost for Novell, on the other hand, is tied to the server. Once

Ok. You buy your Novell licences per number of concurrent users
on the novell server.  You buy your Pathworks licences on the
number of clients you have total.  Looks pretty much the same to
me.

> you total up the total cost, Novell is not cheaper than PATHWORKS.

Really?  How about factoring in the Server OS and machine costs.
Australian Government prices still had Novell cheaper than
Pathworks.

Carl.
Hmmm...  I'd better add this;
The above statements are the opinions of Carl Makin.  The
Australian Government Department of Health, Housing and Community
Services is in no way associated with or responsibile for these
opinions.

-- 
Carl Makin, MVS/ESA Systems Programmer, VAX/VMS Dabbler. 
Dept. Health, Housing and Community Services, Canberra, Australia.
sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au!hhcs!makinc   -   UUCP
makinc@hhcs.gov.au		   -   Internet
vk1kcm@vk1kcm.act.aus.oc	   -   Packet Radio
"I'm from the Government and I'm here to help you."