Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!umich!sharkey!msuinfo!netnews.upenn.edu!dsinc!bdgltd!ela From: ela@bdgltd.UUCP (Ed Ackerman Programmer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.novell Subject: Re: Lantastic Keywords: Lantastic, Network Message-ID: <322@bdgltd.UUCP> Date: 17 Feb 91 02:41:06 GMT References: <5233@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM> Reply-To: ela@.UUCP (Ed Ackerman Programmer) Organization: Bureau of Dangerous Goods, Ltd. Lines: 29 In article <5233@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM> michaels@sail.labs.tek.com writes: >Greetings, > >The network will be heavily used by the PCs as they access a database. > >1. How would you compare Novell and Lantastic? > >2. What has been your experience using Lantastic? > Let me answer the questions that I can. I have NOT used Lantastic so I have no opinion on it. What I have heard is just that stuff that I have heard and I can not make a judgment one way or another. What I can comment on is Novell Netware, both the 2.15 and the 386 versions. As the System Administrator for a company that has 12 Novell networks installed I can say that they work, and they work well. We have a variety of applications running from purchased to 'home grown' And they all work, some have required a moderate amount of tweeking. Those were ones that we wrote as single user and migrated to the network. What you use as a database engine should dictate what network you should use. Novell has a very nice database (Btrieve) Applications that use it can go from single user to a network with very minor modifications. dBase III requires more work, and I cant comment on any others. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Ackerman | It is impossible to make anything bdgltd!ela@dsi.com or ...!dsinc!bdgltd!ela| foolproof beacause fools are #include | SO ingenious!