Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcce!pasek
From: pasek@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Michael A. Pasek)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk
Subject: Re: Chooser/atis registration problem?
Summary: Let the User be the Chooser
Keywords: Chooser AppleTalk
Message-ID: <1468@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM>
Date: 24 Aug 89 13:36:29 GMT
Expires: 1 Sep 89 04:00:00 GMT
References: <8826@saturn.ucsc.edu> <13321.619876292@GNOME.CS.CMU.EDU> <10508@claris.com>
Reply-To: pasek@c10sd3.StPaul.NCR.COM (M. A. Pasek)
Followup-To: comp.protocols.appletalk comp.sys.mac
Distribution: na
Organization: NCR Comten, Inc.
Lines: 40

In article <10508@claris.com> peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) writes:
>In article <13321.619876292@GNOME.CS.CMU.EDU> Ravinder.Chandhok@CS.CMU.EDU (Rob Chandhok) writes:
>>Chooser has a (in my opinion) extremely bad implementation in terms of
>>finding services on fully populated networks.  While Chooser shouldn't have
>>any problems with 12 hosts, it certainly can't deal with more than about 25.
>> 
>I REALLY hope that Apple upgrades the Chooser in system 7.  I've got an
>application that's used by almost everyone here at Claris.  It registers
>an NBP name at boot time.  We've got sometimes 40 or 50 names registered
>[remainder of problem description deleted]
>Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have relied on the Chooser to do my
>connecting.  It works fine for small configurations, but just isn't 
>usable in large, dense networks...
>

Granted, AppleTalk and its appendages were not envisioned to handle more than
a few machines in a local environment at reasonable (<1Mb/s) speeds.  However,
one thing that (IMHO) MUST NOT BE FORGOTTEN is that it works remarkably well
(and SIMPLY) for those who do not have the extensive network/high speed
requirements of the writers above.

What I'm getting at here is this:  I hope that Apple DOES NOT "improve" the
Chooser.  For me, it works just fine the way it is (for now).  What I would
hope they would to is offer an ALTERNATIVE to the Chooser to address the
problems mentioned above.  This alternative may require more memory, more
processor cycles, more configuration by the user, etc., etc., etc., in order
to be able to provide the additional service that these people need.  But,
back to my original point: Let ME (the user) choose which of these solutions
I need.  

While I'm at it, I think that this approach should be used for alot of the
pieces of the System.  With System 7.0, it's almost as bad as OS/2 (needs
gobs of memory just to LOAD!).  For those who NEED the features of System 7.0,
this is OK -- they can probably afford the memory.  WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF US?

OK, I'm done now......

M. A. Pasek          Switching Software Development         NCR Comten, Inc.
(612) 638-7668              CNG Development               2700 N. Snelling Ave.
pasek@c10sd3.StPaul.NCR.COM                               Roseville, MN  55113