Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!PENNDRLS.UPENN.EDU!GTHEALL
From: GTHEALL@PENNDRLS.UPENN.EDU (George A. Theall)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.dec.micro
Subject: RE: FIDONET ON COMPUSERV    Conf: (74) fRAINBOW
Message-ID: <8910061228.AA03730@remote.dccs.upenn.edu>
Date: 6 Oct 89 13:26:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 47

Comments: Rainbow Echomail from MAYNARD MARQUIS    Read: YES

In a message of < 2 Oct 89 14:13:08>, Bill Mayhew (1:101/1) writes:

>I basically agree with most of your points.  I am frankly surprised that

>the
>one-way path would be acceptable to people here...


>  Just for the sake of argument, though ;-}, there are other issues
>besides
>cost in the "Fido vs. CIS" comparison.  First, there are automated access
>programs for the IBM PC and the Mac (not for the RB, unfortunately) which
>*greatly* optimize the use of one's time and money on CIS, considerably

>more
>than can be done on Fido from what I've seen.

If you set up a point and get echomail sent to you, CIS can't come
close to optimizing time or money. Automated programs like OPUS express and
others can make Fidonet quite efficient even if you aren't a point. Also,
can call a vanilla OPUS, use a capture buffer, and use the = command for conti
reading. It beats spending money figuring out how to navigate CIS.
(They now have a practice forum, but charge me $1.60+ /month even when I
DON'T
use CIS at all.)
If you're 9600 HST like me, CIS can't come close to the volume of fidonet
for anywhere near the cost. Don't undersell the capabilities of FIDOnet.

I agree with your comments about reliability differences, different
users and that Fidonet and CIS probably compliment one another. I think that
FidoNet has potential to be better but, after all, it's basically a  hobbiest
net.

If people want to pay me a fraction of what they pay CIS, I'll bet that
I could set up a system that matches CIS's efficiency, reliablity, et al.
The people using the systems would still be different and it  would never
be the same, however. My point is that I don't think technical details are
the issue.

Perhaps, I should investigate the DECPC SIG a bit more. What does it
have to offer? I would like to see how different it is.

--- msged 1.99S ZTC
* Origin: TeleTalk BBS (203-674-1802)  (1:142/328)
--- Via PCBGate v2.0a5