Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.desktop.pathworks
Subject: RE: PATHWORKS vs Novell
From: Ta Fuh Chiam <chiam@VULCAN.CBA.OHIOU.EDU>
Date: 20 Nov 1992 22:19:48 -0500 (EST)
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

>>>   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!
 
I believe what he/she was saying was network integration, connectivity to VAX
and other systems.
 
>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.
 
I am glad that Novell is finally getting into that now. As far as I know,
they did not have these at the beginning. Now, they have it and you will
have to pay for it.
 
>There is no functionality inherant in Pathworks, which after all
>is Microsoft Lan Manager over Decnet, which isn't available in
 
And what is wrong with being Microsoft Lan Manager?
 
>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.
 
I really don't get your point here. If integration with ALL-IN-1 is a
requirement, then it is a requirement. What is wrong with that?
 
Be careful when you say "Digital rushed us a version of the Teamlinks
software...". You may be asking just what you want - DEC's non-responsiveness.
When Digital does not bother to do that, then we all bash DEC sales force. I
think it is a no win situation for DEC and is not fair, IMHO. So, do
youmean that other vendors don't do that?
 
>Teamlinks, however isn't compatable with anything other than
>Pathworks so the political decision was made to go Pathworks.
 
In that case, then why did the decision favor PATHWORKS? Looks to me like a
conflicting decision.
 
>> 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
 
I think this is too harsh too. :-)
 
>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
 
How does being connected to terminal servers make them slow? I am sure
many people can tell you that they do not have problems printing from
PATHWORKS to third-party vendors. Just because you can't make it work
does not mean that it's garbage.
 
>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.
 
Just exactly why did you buy PATHWORKS because you have Macintoshes on the
network?
 
That aside, what is the problem with printing toApple LaserWriter IIs via
PATHWORKS? We have a bunch of them here printing with no problem.
 
>>>   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.
 
So, from where did you get the "30" users supported by the VAXstation 4000
VLC numbers ? Does the $4000 include Novell Netware and the additional
"Novell ODI/TCP/IP supports terminal sessions over TCP/IP as well as FTP
which are the equivelants to SETHOST and NFT" which you described? The last
time I checked, a 50 user Netware is about $7,000.
 
I have wondered and asked with no positive answer, can a 486 server running
Netware realistically support 100 *simultaneous* heavy duty users with heavy IO?
Netware 1000 or 2000 users version on a 486, is that a reality? I read an
article some time ago and someone said that is science fiction. :-) Really, I am
interested in knowing this as it will solve a lot of our problems too. I don't
think PATHWORKS can handle that.
 
>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.
 
Are you sure that it was not a joke to you? If it is not a joke, then
whoever wrote that document must be on drug or completely drunk. If this was
done by a DEC employee, he or she should be out the door! Tell him or her to get
real!
 
So, do you  believe that document?
 
I really would like to see this document. Can you provide the source? I tried
loading Excel under Windows from a VAXstation 3100 model 30 with about 30 PCs,
all load a spreadsheet and all print at the same time. No problem. So, I am
curious.
 
>> 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.
 On
>ce
>
>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.
 
What about if I want to buy more servers to serve the same number of users?
Try adding more Netware servers to support more users andsee what happens.
Try purchasing the additional modules for the TCP/IP, WAN capabilities and
see what your total cost is.
 
PATHWORKS has its strengths and weaknesses, the same as Novell Netware.
Don't compare apples and oranges.