[255D[40m
[0;1;34mQ: How do you feel when people try to compare Synchronet, a relative newcomer
   to the BBS world, to old warhorses such as PCBoard and MajorBBS?

[31mA: [37mBeing that [35mMajorBBS [37mis not [36mmultinode[37m, that is often an awkward comparison.
The [34mPCBoard/Synchronet [37mcomparison is more [35mrealistic [37mand [34mproductive[37m. In general,
there are a boat-load of things that [32mmultinode BBSs [37mcan do that [31mmultiuser
BBSs [37m(TBBS, MajorBBS, DLX, etc) [36mcannot [37mand vice versa. This is because of a
basic design strategy from the out-set.

It is a fact, that the largest [32mPC-based BBSs [37mon planet Earth ([35mlarge in
incoming lines[37m) run [36mmultinode[37m, not [31mmultiuser [37mBBS packages. With [31mmultiuser
[37mpackages, you are [31mlimited to what one CPU and I/O system can handle[37m. With
[36mmultinode [37mpackages, the [36mmaximum number of nodes [37m(spread across numerous CPUs)
is [36mmuch greater and potentially faster and more reliable[37m. The argument that
[31mmultiuser BBS[37ms can run more lines on one machine is moot when the number of
[32mlines you want to run exceeds that which one machine can handle[37m. This is a
[0;36mlimitation, not a feature[1;37m. Not to mention the fact that [31mmultiuser BBSs [35mcannot
run any external programs [37m(doors, transfer protocols, compression programs,
etc.) [35mon the same CPU[37m. Their solution is another CPU with a serial link to
the BBS, thus nullifying their "single CPU" theory.

I think comparing the [32mcompetition's multinode BBS packages to Synchronet can
be productive and insightful [37minto the needs and wants of the sysops and users
alike. It's unrealistic to expect any one [35mBBS [37mprogram to incorporate the
usability and features of every other [35mBBS [37mprogram in existance. We believe in
progress rather than perfection.


[34mQ: A great selling point of Synchronet is it's affordability. Are there
   any plans for an increase in price in the foreseeable future?

[37mA: The [32mnon-DOS versions [37mwill not be available in a [33m$99 [37mversion and a node
license cost has not been determined for these versions either. We are
estimating the [35mupgrade cost from the DOS to the OS/2 version [37mat [33m$50[37m.

We want to keep the initial DOS product at [33m$99[37m, but it may not be a [32m2-node
[37mversion forever. We may be introducing a [32m1 node [37mversion at the $99 price and
raising the [32m2-node [37mprice. This should not effect existing Synchronet owners.


[34mQ: With the exception of SyncUUCP (NetXpress), there have been relatively
   few major third party add-ons for Synchronet. Do you see this as a
   problem, or just the result of Synchronet's lack of media exposure and
   newcomer status.

[37mA: [34mNetXpress [37m(AKA SyncUUCP) is one of the few [32mcommercial add-ons [37mfor Synchronet,and the [32mbiggest third-party support of SMB [37mto date. But there are practically
[36mhundreds of shareware/public domain add-ons for Synchronet [37mas well. Many
duplicate the efforts of other programs in existance or aren't in as great
demand as [34mNetXpress[37m. It has been reported that [35mAlexiMail [37m(FidoNet echomail
program) for [32mSMB [37mis currently in beta testing. [35mInterEcho [37m(FidoNet echomail
program) has announced planned support for [32mSMB [37mas well, but no development
or beta testing reported to date. The author of [35mAlexiMail[37m, Chad Nelson can
be netmailed via [0;32mFidoNet at 1:109/536 [1;37mand InterMail/InterEcho sales can
be netmailed via [0;36mFidoNet at 1:369/102[1;37m.

[32mProgrammers and development companies usually respond to the requests of their
customers/users[37m. Being that [35mSynchronet sysops are out-numbered [37mout there,
many developers choose to quell the requests of their "other" customers and
thus SMB support moves further down the line. The more vocal Synchronet
sysops are to third party developers about supporting [32mSMB[37m, the quicker the
support will be implemented. I personally suggest, that ever [34mSynchronet [37msysop
download a copy of [31mSMB_111.ZIP [37mand upload to all your favorite third-party
developers that don't currently support [32mSMB[37m. Then follow up with questions
about their development plans for [32mSMB[37m. Some will say "[0mYes, we'll do it[1m" just
to quiet some buggy users, so periodically check with the developer on their
progress.

Recently [34mSyncEdit [37mwas released, a full-screen [33mANSI [37meditor for [34mSynchronet[37m.
The programmer appears anxious to enhance the product and answer the needs
of [34mSynchronet [37msysops and users. I, personally, still use [32mQedit locally[37m.
A demo version of [34mSyncEdit [37mcan be downloaded from [33mVertrauen[37m.

Also, [33mZChat[37m, a multinode chat door, was released with direct [34mSynchronet
[37msupport. This product looks like it may very well be an immediate answer for
those looking for a more "[36mMajorBBS[37m" style of multinode chat and profiling. A
demo version of ZChat can be downloaded from [33mVertrauen[37m.



[34mQ: A native OS/2 version of Synchronet is scheduled for release in the near
   future. Will Digital Dynamics offer a discount to current Synchronet for
   DOS users if they wish to switch over? If so, has an amount been
   determined?


[37mA: [35mYes[37m, approximately [33m$50[37m.


[34mQ: If and when Microsoft releases their much ballihooed Windows95, will
   Digital Dynamics create a native Synchronet for that OS as well?


[37mA: [32mWin-32 executables [37mwill run under [31mWindows NT [37mand [35mWindows 95 [37mand we do plan
on supporting this platform.



[0m[255D