Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.lans:2752 comp.terminals:1271 comp.sys.pyramid:388 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!ron.rutgers.edu!ron From: ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.terminals,comp.sys.pyramid Subject: Re: Terminal server info needed Message-ID: Date: 2 May 89 15:07:22 GMT References: <367@utgard.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 24 Of the ones I've tried, ANNEX and CISCO are the ones that work best. We've been in joint development so long with CISCO that every minor change we've ever wanted in a terminal server has been incorporated into their official release. I also used an ANNEX continuously for several months and found no problem with it's operation either. The ANNEX terminal server development people were generally receptive to changes proposed in their product as well. The CISCO servers are very attractive to a central site as they can be expanded to close to 100 lines per box. The ANNEX boxes were more cost effective at one time when you only needed a dozen lines, but CISCO now sells smaller cheaper versions of their server as well. The user interface is similar on the boxes, the ANNEX people obviously being UNIX oriented, the CISCO people being DEC-20 holdovers. Both boxes support TELNET, RLOGIN, and SLIP. We've also used at various times Ungermann/Bass and Bridge boxes. I'll not comment on these since I haven't used anything that they've come out with in the past year. We still have many Bridge servers in use, but they have some rough edges on their implementation (at least in the old ones we have). Bridge customer support was likewise very helpful. -Ron