Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!udel!garrett
From: garrett@udel.EDU (Joel Garrett)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk
Subject: Re:  Pacer vs. Alisa
Message-ID: <2348@louie.udel.EDU>
Date: 2 May 88 15:17:16 GMT
References: <5456@utah-cs.UUCP> <1396*kenw@noah.arc.cdn>
Reply-To: garrett@udel.EDU (Joel Garrett)
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 24

In article <1396*kenw@noah.arc.cdn> kenw@noah.arc.CDN (Ken Wallewein) writes:
>>ps. the biggest plus that I see with Alisa is that they support STANDARD MAC
>>APPLESHARE CLIENT SOFTWARE, and they use standard ethertalk throught the
>>kinetics.  As I understand it, Pacer uses some sort of proprietary client
>>software....
>
>  Nope. Pacer uses the standard Apple client software, too, exactly as it
>comes from Apple. What's more, Pacer's _server_ software on VMS uses the VMS
>_NATIVE_ file structure, as opposed to those big virtual disks files that
>Alias uses. This provides significant advantages in terms of performance, user
>interface, and security.

Alisa's forthcoming AppleShare server, AlisaShare, also uses the Standard
Apple client software and a VMS native file structure.  I know, it isn't
available as a 1.0 product yet, but then again neither is PacerShare -
offically at least - it is still in Beta.

> => You use standard Appleshare to manipulate your VMS directory structure. <=
>I believe Alisa requires special (not yet released) software to do this. 

AlisaShare won't need anything like this either.  I kind of doubt if Alisa
will support their old way of doing things once this is released.

					Joel