Andy said, in part..
> ADSM has demonstrated in our shop that it is, without a doubt, a premier
> backup system with no peer. ...

It is pretty good :-)

> ... As to whether Win95 is a premier operating
> system? I'm not even convinced that it is a true operating system, any
> more than Win 3.1 is. As to premier? I don't think so. I bet MS sells a
> lot of copies, but quantity does not equal quality. (:>

Unfortunately, wrt a backup system, #copies does matter.  If I had 100s
or 1,000s of Windows clients spread around the campus and being backed
up, I'd want the new client available on Aug 24.  As it is, I have *3*
... so I'm OK.  However, it means that I will not even attempt to
encourage those 1,000s of Windows machines on campus to use ADSM and
some of those will use other methods (most will remain not backed up).
We were developing such a plan for some client platforms (Netware,
MacOS and Windows), but will not proceed with Windows planning.

> But seriously, I personally would rather have IBM work on enhancements to
> the existing product rather than work on a client for a product that isn't
> even in production release yet, and probably won't/shouldn't be in
> production in big shops for a while yet.

Maybe the current Windows client could use a rewrite, but I'd rather
see a Windows 95 client be built correctly than effort expended on a
Windows 3.1 client upgrade.  I have no idea how (IBM) investment in
one client would affect other clients or server enhancement
possibilities, however.

Windows95 will be on this campus this Fall.  Contrary to the following,
a Windows95 upgrade means dropping ADSM (for those clients).

> By the way, the regular Windows 3.1 client will work just fine in Win 95.
> It might not be able to back up everything (like the registry?), but it
> should be able to back up data. Just make sure you use the FAT file system
> with 8.3 file names.

Regards,

Wayne T. Smith
Systems Group -- CAPS        internet: wts AT maine.maine DOT edu
University of Maine System   BITNET/CREN: WTS@MAINE