Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:40096 comp.protocols.appletalk:2549
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!apple.com!desnoyer
From: desnoyer@apple.com (Peter Desnoyers)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.protocols.appletalk
Subject: Re: Increasing RAM on AppleShare Server
Message-ID: <4722@internal.Apple.COM>
Date: 13 Oct 89 16:21:58 GMT
Sender: usenet@Apple.COM
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Lines: 15
References:<349@sdcc19.ucsd.EDU> <1989Oct11.022443.25922@paris.ics.uci.edu> <33912@beta.lanl.gov> <3335@mace.cc.purdue.edu>

In article <3335@mace.cc.purdue.edu> ajq@mace.cc.purdue.edu (John 
O'Malley) writes:
> MacUser's May 1989 issue has got a great report that compares LocalTalk
> vs. EtherTalk, AppleShare vs. TOPS, and also covers performance 
differences
> when using a Mac Plus, SE, II, IIx, SE/30, and Compaq 286.
> 
> It's a great report.  Required reading for any Mac network manager, I'd say.

Please, this has been discussed before in this newsgroup. The article you 
mention is flawed in its methods, and reaches unsound conclusions. 

                                      Peter Desnoyers
                                      Apple ATG
                                      (408) 974-4469