Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!suntops!santa_fe.Tops.Sun.COM!cohen
From: cohen@santa_fe.Tops.Sun.COM (Michael Cohen)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk
Subject: Re: TOPS vs. PublicFolder
Message-ID: <742@suntops.Tops.Sun.COM>
Date: 15 Feb 90 21:06:27 GMT
References: <3782@accuvax.nwu.edu> <5374@okstate.UUCP> <1990Feb14.184128.738@intercon.com> <741@suntops.Tops.Sun.COM> <10880@claris.com>
Sender: news@suntops.Tops.Sun.COM
Reply-To: cohen@santa_fe.tops.sun.com (Michael Cohen)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.  Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 23

In article <10880@claris.com> peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) writes:
>In article <741@suntops.Tops.Sun.COM> cohen@santa_fe.tops.sun.com (Michael Cohen) writes:
>>  PublicFolder [uses] ADSP.
>
>Ahem, Public Folder does not use ADSP.  It uses ATP.  

Sorry about this mistake.  I knew that Pete Helme's "Oscar" is based on
ADSP, so I assumed that PublicFolder was as well.

But I still think that the difference in performance between TOPS and
PublicFolder [I'm accepting Amanda's word on this; I've never seen any test
results] is because the products are designed to do different things.

Claiming that it's because TOPS is optimized for LocalTalk is not relevant.

On another note, I don't want to give the impression that I'm out to
trash PublicFolder.  Although I've never used the product myself, I've only
heard very favorable reports.  It's seems to be a cheap, efficient file-
transfer utility.

- Michael Cohen
  TOPS
  cohen@santa_fe.ebay.sun.com