Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!crdgw1!gecrdvm1!darwees
From: DARWEES@gecrdvm1.crd.ge.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Disinfectant 2.0 vs SAM vs ?
Message-ID: <90226.131509DARWEES@GECRDVM1.BITNET>
Date: 14 Aug 90 17:15:09 GMT
References: <53318215MES@MSU> <90221.1412203XMQGAA@CMUVM.BITNET>
 <1990Aug9.221406.14913@midway.uchicago.edu> <8898@ur-cc.UUCP>
 <BARNETT.90Aug10095643@grymoire.crd.ge.com>
Organization: General Electric Corporate Research & Development
Lines: 29

In an office situation, I would still tend to believe that Disinfectant is easi
er to keep up-to-date with.

1)  There is no Money or licensing fee therefore Disinfectant may be placed on
a public fileserver and all Macintosh users can be told that it is there
while SAM costs many $$ per machine.


2)  You're going to have to tell the users how to use the program no matter
which you use and Disinfectant is much easier to learn (Especially with the SAM
 intercept Control Panel options AND an Application).

3)  Updates are much quicker and less expensive via FTP for Disinfectant.

4)  Both SAM and Disinfectant work well although some earlier versions of SAM h
ad a bug or 2.

5)  The Disinfectant Init takes up MUCH less memory than SAM intercept, yet is
still very functional.

6) Installation is not really more difficult for SAM, but you have to set up al
l the options or the SAM init is not as effective.

Maybe it's just personal preference, but I believe that using Disinfectant inst
ead of SAM can save a lot of money for the same-if not better-results.

-Mike Darweesh
darwees@gecrdvm1.bitnet
weesh@crd.ge.com