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