Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!apple!uokmax!munnari.oz.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!yarra!bohra!als
From: als@bohra.cpg.oz (Anthony Shipman)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: NFS vs. PC Interface w/ SCO ODT...
Message-ID: <568@bohra.cpg.oz>
Date: 16 Aug 90 02:01:08 GMT
References: <26576@usc.edu> <531@fciva.FRANKLIN.COM>
Organization: Computer Power Group, Melb, Australia
Lines: 24

In article <26576@usc.edu> rpinder@phad.hsc.usc.edu (Rich Pinder) writes:
>I am considering purchasing the SCO Open Desktop with Server upgrade. Can
>anyone help me understand the differences between the NFS Server, and the
>PC-Interface. [...] and which would require less ram usage on the pc?

An, if not the, advantage of PC-I is the remote printing. It will redirect from
LPT: to a spooler on the UNIX server. This is very useful for programs that
don't have the option to print into a file. It requires some fiddling
with timeouts to get right though. 

Apparently DOS has no way of marking the end of a print job. PC-I has to 
accumulate LPT: output until the application stops sending it for some period 
and then submit the print job. If the timeout goes off in the middle of the 
print job it fails.

With NFS you would/should probably have a PC/TCP-like product to do remote
printing with an "lpr" command. The output from a word processor would have to
be written to a file first.

-- 
Anthony Shipman                               ACSnet: als@bohra.cpg.oz.au
Computer Power Group
9th Flr, 616 St. Kilda Rd.,
St. Kilda, Melbourne, Australia
D