🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C1KuoF.Mu2@world.std.com> nectar@world.std.com (Jacques A Vidrine) writes:
>sholmste@novell.com (Shawn Holmstead) writes:
>
>>In article <chris.206.728167640@marvin.ag.uidaho.edu> chris@marvin.ag.uidaho.edu (Chris Magagna) writes:
>>>I have a faculty with a CD-ROM drive in his machine about to connect to our 
>>>3.11 network.  He wants to make this drive available to a few of his 
>>>research associates.  
>>>
>>>Our original plan was to install Windows for Workgroups on the three 
>>>machines, but our local software dealer informs me that W4W and NetWare 
>>>cannot coexist (presumably because of the falling out between Novell and 
>>>Microsoft), and he recommends Lantastic.
>
>Windows for Workgroups and Netware coexist without any problems.  Your
>software dealer is terribly uninformed.
>
>Windows for Workgroups works much better than Lantastic+Windows.  One catch
>you want to look out for, however, is that in order for a workstation to
>share its resources (like your faculty member's machine), it must be able to
>run in Windows enhanced mode.  This means you need a 386sx or better with
>2 Mb RAM or (hopefully) more.
>
>>>
>>>Lantastic will be a more expensive solution (Microsoft gives great 
>>>educational discounts), plus it's an unknown quantity because we've never 
>>>used it here before.
>>>
>>>So, faithful net, will W4W work with NetWare, or should I go with Lantastic, 
>>>or is there something behind door #3?  Thanks for any help.
>
>>You might want to consider NetWare Lite 1.1.  NetWare Lite co-exists fine
>>with NetWare 3.11 and will allow you to share the CD drive.  Just load the
>>NetWare Lite server program on the machine with the CD, and the client
>>program on the 2 other machines who want to access the CD.  You will have to
>>have 3 copies of NetWare Lite though because each copy is serialized.
>
>NetWare Lite 1.1 is a bigger pain in the neck to integrate with Netware 3.11
>than Windows for Workgroups or Lantastic.  Its features, performance, and
>Windows support are all below average.
>
>I've used all three of the products in various configurations.  I would
>GUESS (all I can do, without knowing specifics of your situation) that
>WfWG would be your best bet.
>
>Oh, yeah, I forgot the obvious: if you don't expect to use Windows primarily,
>then WfWG is probably the wrong choice.  Go with Lantastic.
>-- 
>Jacques A. Vidrine...	   |
>nectar@world.std.com	   | What man has made,
>			   | man can destroy.
>			   |

One caveat: if you use a netware server to route segements of your network, WFW workstations will not be able to share data between them.  --B


------------------------------------
Bob Matsuoka 
New Lab for Teaching and Learning