From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft blasting IBM into the dust?
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 08:18:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.211950.8340@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:
>nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>
>>Lately I have been amazed at comp.os.os2.advocacy. Most discussions
>>(95%?) seem to cover "if Windows 3.1 is an OS". Very interesting probably
>>but is everyone blind for what is really happening here?
>
>>While IBM is trying to get Windows 3.1 out the door the next generation of
>>Windows has already been released. No not NT but WfW. The produkt is so
>>damned impressive Novell started sueing MS right away. According to many
>>who have seen the produkt its network support is very impressive. Autodetect
>>of network adapters, networks etc. Tranparant integration in Windows etc.
>
>Well, WfWG has a few warts.  First, some of the supposed transparent 
>networking depends on a Lan Manager server (surprise, surprise).  It 

I does not in anyway depend on a Lan Manager server.  If you connect two
or more WfW PC's on a network, they can all share files and printers, e-mail,
etc.
Obviously you must have never used WfW if you think it needs a Lan Manager
server -- it's rude of you to make such comments about something you've not
used.

>offers some integration with Novell, but zero with VINES.  It is S-L-O-W.

"some integration"? Why do you say "some"?

>It is Ok for *very simple* file sharing and printer sharing (PC Tools
>8.0 also offers this for DOS users, BTW).

It works fast enough that running off an app located on a WfW machine
(from my NT machine), appears as if it is running off the local disk.
As to "very simple" -- what does that mean?  For example my wife accidently
left Word up on a file on her machine, and then tried to edit it with
Word on my NT machine... it came back and told her specifically who
had what file already open on what machine.  I would not call
this "very simple".
My wife sets up to different "shares" to the printer on my machine.  This
allows her to specify two different pages size, standard 8 1/2x11 tractro
feed, and a small size for printing Franklin Planner sheets.
This ability is "very simple".

The only "very simple" thing about WfW is that it extremely easy to setup.

>
>If any group needs to worry about WfWG it is the vendors whose bread
>and butter is in the peer-to-peer LAN market, e.g., ArtiSoft, Tiara, etc.
>But I don't think they are too worried, yet.  It may integrate well with
>Windows, but beyond that it is a slow, limited peer-to-peer that depends
>to large extent on a big brother for some of the promised features.

It is neither slow nor limited in any real sense.  There is e-mail, a
distributed "group scheduling" app, a distributed hearts game, chat.
It has full printer and disk sharing, with the ability to setup accounts.
A WfW station can be setup as a post-office (though it doesn't have the
ability to be a gateway to other mail protocols).
See my tidbits report on WfW in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy for details.


Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                   I strongly encourage you to mail your copy
University of Utah                     of Ross Perot's:  "United We Stand
Center for Software Science            How we can take back our country",
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373        to President-elect Clinton.