Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!phobos.cis.ksu.edu!craig
From: craig@phobos.cis.ksu.edu (Stuart A Craig )
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: Netware or Lantastic
Message-ID: <craig.663386233@phobos>
Date: 9 Jan 91 01:57:13 GMT
References: <22157@rouge.usl.edu>
Sender: news@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu (The News Guru)
Organization: Kansas State University
Lines: 28

pcb@cacs.usl.edu (Peter C. Bahrs) writes:

>I have used netware 2.15a for 2 years and lantastic 3.02 for 3 months.
>Netware is 20+ diskettes, lantastic is 1.

>I am not sure what netware has over lantastic yet, except a bunch of
>utility programs.  How would you answer the statement:
>  Is lantastic just as good as netware?

I have been really pleased with Lantastic.  For one thing their low cost
is extreamly attractive.  They also do not tie up a lot of memory 
(considerably less than most other network applications I have seen).
These were the two main reasons I decided to go with lantastic.
Their NETBIOS is fairly strait forword and conforms well with standards,
We have written several routines that utilize it for doing remote procedure 
calls and message sending.  Speed is ok, but nothing to write home about,
however I hear that the ethernet version is simple, FAST, and reliable. 
(The Lantastic ethernet cards were not out yet and there was a six month
waiting list the WD ethernet cards when I purchased our network).
  Netware is great, but for Price, performance reliablity, and low memory
use, you really can't bet Lantastic.

-Stuart Craig 
    internet  craig@phobos.cis.ksu.edu
    bitnet    sac@ksuvm