Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!software.mitel.com!wood!wood
From: wood@Software.Mitel.COM (Dale Wood)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.novell
Subject: Re: Lantastic
Message-ID: <WOOD.91Feb19080737@wood.Software.Mitel.COM>
Date: 19 Feb 91 13:07:37 GMT
References: <5233@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM>
Sender: wood@Software.Mitel.COM
Followup-To: comp.sys.novell
Organization: Public Switching, MITEL Corporation, Kanata, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 23
In-reply-to: michaels@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM's message of 16 Feb 91 03:37:18 GMT

In article <5233@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM> michaels@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM (Michael D. Smith) writes:

>   Lantastic system is far better than Novell.

 >   since this is what our "expert" recommends.  But I don't
 >  feel right about just taking his advice since he is obviously
 >  biased and because the Lantastic system will cost alot more.

>   2. What has been your experience using Lantastic?

I have used no other PC LAN Network except for the Lantastic network adaptor, so
a comparing I will not do. 

Three PC's connected in a doctors office, each accessing client records.
(Traffic is not what I would consider to be high.) My opinion is that the system
offers the biggest bang for the doller. In trainning the staff, there was no
problem using the software NET and NET_MGR. 

I have been very happy with the product for what I and this other office have 
done with it. 

...Dale Wood
wood@Software.Mitel.COM