odd...our experience was exactly the opposite.  While we were testing the browser version, everything we needed done, minisoft was all over it.  we've been using it for a couple of months now and are completely satisfies...

just shows to go you, I guess.  count on nothing.

Bob Graham
Director of Applications Programming
505.923.8064

"It is good that war is so terrible, else we should become too fond of
it!" - MG William Tecumseh Sherman


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul H Christidis
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 12:40 PM
To: Graham, Robert
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Reflections vs Minisoft




We also looked at Minisoft's browser version but our experience was totally
different.  We had trouble with their NS version (it would create two
connections to our HP every time I'd run it from my PC) and the cursor, on their
'telnet' AND NS versions, would turn invisible on us (I usually like to know
where the cursor is on the screen).

After some initial attempts on their part to resolve the issues they seemed to
forget about us and thus in turn we forgot about them.

Regards
Paul Christidis





We had been using telnet for well over a year because we had low-volume
users in other business units of the corporation where the decision had been
made, purely for financial reasons, not to buy reflection.  Apparently, no
one involved in that decision knew anything about minisoft.

After having our 997 fail AT LEAST once per month over the past year solely
because of "undocumented features" in the HP telnet service, we finally had
enough and have since gone to minisoft's brower version.  one of the
happiest days we've had around here was the day we were able to stop telnet.
Believe me, we've never looked back.

We had tested QCterm and while it was useful, it also made use of telnet,
which has a very bad reputation around here.  I've used both reflection and
minisoft quite a bit, and unhesitatingly recommend minisoft.  it's easier to
set up and maintain, less expensive, and every bit as robust as reflection.
unless scripting is the deciding issue, I belive the choice is a
"no-brainer"...minisoft 3, wrq 0.

Bob Graham

"It is good that war is so terrible, else we should become too fond of
it!" - MG William Tecumseh Sherman


-----Original Message-----
From: Wirt Atmar
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 11:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Reflections vs Minisoft


Gary writes:

> IIRC though, QCTerm requires that you run Telnet.  This may be an issue
with
>  your shop.

That's true. We made the decision -- actually quite some time ago -- that
the
advantages of telnet were so significant that we decided that we would not
bother supporting NS/VT. While NS/VT is the historically overwhelming
communications protocol used by terminal emulators on the HP3000 today, that
usage percentage is likely to drop every year from now on out, until
finally,
it becomes a rarity.

Telnet is the universal standard of the internet. Virtually all devices,
even
your printers and routers, speak telnet. NS/VT, on the other hand, is
restricted primarily only to the HP3000. Having the capacity to talk to
anyone, anywhere from your terminal emulator is simply an extraordinary, a
night-and-day difference.

If you aren't using telnet yet, you'll want to at least think about it
implementing it soon.

Wirt Atmar