RE: Win95 - CA/400 session limit

Got any demos available?  

Bradley V. Stone        
bvstone@taylorcorp.com
http://prairie.lakes.com/~bvstone/
"Don't forget that tangy zip, that mmmm... miricle whip.... don't skip
the zip"

        ----Original Message-----
        From:   Jerome Draper [SMTP:jdraper@wco.com]
        Sent:   Tuesday, February 10, 1998 3:09 PM
        To:     MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
        Subject:        Re: Win95 - CA/400 session limit

        At 12:36 PM 2/5/98 EST, you wrote:
        >When the same set up works on Win 3.1 and not on Win 95, I'm
supposed to
        blame
        >IBM for not accommodating changes that M$ made and didn't
bother to document?
        >Sorry, it doesn't wash. But you did a good job of bluffing your
way into the
        >dialog.
        >
        >In a message dated 98-02-05 09:02:50 EST,
bcrothers@netdirect.net (Bob
        >Crothers) wrote:
        >
        ><< A mystery from Redmond?  When your AS/400 based application 
        > software blows up, do you blame IBM?  Why do you blame
Microsoft 
        > for CAWin?
        > 
        > Your windows machine crashes on a regular basis?  Remove CAWin

        > and see how often it crashes.
        > 
        > I think this mystery originates in Rochester MN. >>

        Let me weigh in here.  I don't really get this.  Who cares where
the blame
        lies in the finger pointing game -- MS or IBM.  Software should
work and
        that's that.  

        Having been on this list for some time, many of you know that I
have been
        selling, supporting, and enjoying the CA/400 replacement from
Synapse
        (www.synapse.com) called WinAPPC.  It amazes me what abuse the
CA/400 users
        will tolerate when better alternatives that actually work are
available.
        There is ample evidence in posts on this list as to the
nightmares real
        people are suffering.

        In APPC situations, Synapse has some fo the usual NS/Router-32
issues (BTW,
        3.1 is latest) but not anywhere near what I see reported here
with CA/400.
        You have to ask yourself, if both IBM and Synapse are using the
        NS/Router-32 why and how can Synapse have a file transfer that
is more than
        6 (yes, six) times faster than CA/400.

        In the TCP/IP area, WinAPPC has both dispay and printer (LPD due
this
        month), with a killer SQL based FTP file transfer coming.

        Let me ask:  Why are so many users accepting such a deficient
product?
        Answers please?

        Regards,

        Jerry



        Jerry Draper, Trilobyte Software Systems, since 1976
        Specializing in connecting PC's, Windows, MAC's, and LAN's to
the AS/400
        Representing Synapse, Apple, IBM, UDS, MI, DCI, Netsoft, etc.
        (415) 457-3431; (415) 258-1658fax; jdraper@wco.com

        +---
        | This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
        | To submit a new message, send your mail to
"MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".
        | To unsubscribe from this list send email to
MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
        | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
david@midrange.com
        +---
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---