| |
G4VWL > BPQ 15.01.99 12:14l 36 Lines 1612 Bytes #-10142 (0) @ WW
BID : 2662_G4VWL
Read: DH6BB SP6VXT DB1RAS GUEST
Subj: BPQ or Flexnet?
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<
PI8GCB<PI8MBQ<PI8VNW<GB7PMB<GB7WXM<GB7DEE<G4VWL
Sent: 990113/1024z @:G4VWL.GB7DEE.#51.GBR.EU $:2662_G4VWL Sally201
From: G4VWL@GB7DEE.#51.GBR.EU
Hi All,
I'm sure this interesting debate could go on for ever but I think the
bottom line is that you should use whichever software you feel more
comfortable with and which best suits your own particular needs.
Both BPQ and PC/Flexnet are not the only programs which seem to run
perfectly on some computers but which cause problems or crashes on others.
It has to be a case of "suck it and see."
On a busy dedicated forwarding Node, perhaps with a busy BBS sat on top, I
suspect that RMNC-Flexnet would be the best approach because the BBS CPU is
relieved of much of its work. If PC/Flexnet seems to improve throughput in
a similar situation then fine, use it - if you're happy with it.
But in situations where the Node is being used as the front-end of a
*users* PMS, there are other factors to consider. Does the user sometimes
want to use the TNC's built-in PMS? Does the user want to use a multi-mode
TNC's other facilities, such as WEFAX or RTTY? A user may have purposely
bought a dual-port TNC to save on COM ports... can a 6PACK cope with that?
In a "Windows" situation, which seems more stable and takes less system
resources? -- That's virtually an un-answerable question because no two
home computers operate under the same conditions.
I don't believe that *any* particular program can be "The Best" in all
possible circumstances.. It has to be an individual choice.
--
73 from John. G4VWL email: john@sparks98.freeserve.co.uk
13 January 1999 09:40 gmt http://www.sparks98.freeserve.co.uk/
Message sent with Sally 201-2 (R)
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
