Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!ucbvax!NSWC-G.ARPA!snorthc
From: snorthc@NSWC-G.ARPA
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: pop2 and PC-NFS Lifeline
Message-ID: <8810050751.aa08770@note.nsf.gov>
Date: 5 Oct 88 11:54:14 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 55

>    If TSR is of critical importance (obviously it's not for me), you
> might want to look into one of the "context switching" programs for
> DOS such as Desqview or DoubleDOS.  They should allow you to keep
> LifeLine in memory, assuming you have enough memory to load LifeLine
> and other programs.

I have tried to run Lifeline under Windows/386.  I keep getting a
socket0 error when the POP client tries to run.  The problem may be
insuffcient free memory.  There is enough memory to compose/read and
queue mail however.


>    The pop2 client probably wouldn't be that difficult.  The problem is to
> make a reasonably useful user interface that could be memory resident
> on a PC.  I've never seen one.  In order to save memory so you can run
> it TSR, you must delete functions.  This means that you have two user
> interfaces, one full-blown to run from the DOS prompt, and one
> stripped-down to run TSR.  My experience with the stripped down ones is
> that you start to use it and become frustrated each time you want to
> use a feature only available in the full version.  The solution most
> vendors implement is to provide a small TSR product that only informs
> you of mail, and perhaps gives the subject lines.  You still have to
> exit your DOS application and start up mail if you want to read and
> reply to the mail.  I think you'll just have to wait for OS/2.  The DOS
> 640K barrier is just too big a restriction. 

I tend to agree, but maybe we won't have to wait for OS/2.  Sidekick plus
is an example of a very large and functional memory resident program
that uses ~64k of the lower 640 as a "kernal" and can stuff the rest
into LIM 4.0 space.

>> Also, just as a general comment is everyone having a difficult time getting
>> SUN to support PC-NFS?

Sometimes it seems like SUN NFS is the only reasonable alternative to
total Novell domination of the networked PCs world.  Too bad they don't
take their role more seriously.  I don't have a problem with Novell, it
is their protocol stack I would like to avoid.

I also had the same experience as Michael Morse, I just loaded the
SUN NFS SW and it ran.  The best support is not having problems.
When I had problems with PC NFS 2.0 and called SUN, 
they sent a patch for one problem and deferred the second till the
release of 3.0.

I am still making no headway with the Lan Manager supplied with the
Micorsoft OS/2 SDK and the 3c505 driver.  You think SUN support is bad,
try 3Com!!!!!!  Hopefully, I will get the update Microsoft said they shipped
two weeks ago any day now.  Any rumors of an OS/2 NFS component?

Stephen Northcutt (snorthc@nswc-g.arpa   (such as it is))

Take what I say with a grain of salt.  I test and evaluate products
from the companies mentioned, and document the results.  Your mileage
may differ.  Your opinions (and my management's) almost certainly will...