
--------------------------------------------------------------------
NOV-Y2K.DOC -- 19980318 -- Email thread on NetWare and the Year 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------

	Feel free to add or edit this document and then email
	it back to faq@jelyon.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Novell Specific information on Year 2000 Issues

For information on Novell's Year 2000 effort, known as "Project 2000," is available at the following url:  http://www.novell.com/p2000/   (jel)

You can also find Year 2000 information on specific Novell products by searching the Knowledge base (http://support.novell.com)   for "Year 2000". (jel)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 09:59:07 -0700
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Y2000 on Netware 4.1 ?

>>Since I've already had a couple of NT servers
>>added to my network due to applications which
>>require it, why does Novell assume that I'll upgrade
>>to INW 4.11 or NW 5 rather than NT 5?
>>
>>Is anybody else kind of mystified by Novell's indifference to its
>>installed base of 4.1 customers?
>
>Then there's the 'installed base' of NW 4.02. 4.01, 4.0, 3.11, 3.10,
>3.0, 2.2, 2.15, 2.12, 2.11, etc. customers. Where would YOU draw the
>line?
>
>Have you calculated the cost of moving to NT 4 (hardware, software,
>time) servers? The NW upgrade will cost you from $6 to $10 per
>licensed user. About an hour of your time per server. No new hardware.
>How's that stack up against your bold move to NT?
>
>-dave
--------
	Precisely. It is interesting watching the psychology of these
situations. Not a worry about moving from NT 4 to NT 5 and change many of
the apps, but gnashing of teeth about moving from an old NW to a supported one.
An astute manager will note that most of the add-on products from Novell
are expecting a NW 4.11 base rather than a 4.10 base or earlier, and the
bug fixing effort is less on 4.10 than later.
	I interpret the orginal comment positively by inferring anger at
changing a highly reliable environment (say NW 4.10) for another just to stay
current, and the anger is at moving from comfortable to unknown or just
different. In the case above the Y2K issue is the cause. I think Novell is
sensitive to the loyalty aspect, but they too need to concentrate on moving
forward. Novell could have said "Y2K is fixed in the next release, buy another
NW server please," but they didn't. They did the best they could balancing
their resources and customer needs.
	There is the reality to the Y2K work which Dave points out well. It
costs lotsa bucks to retrofit older "stable" editions, not just changing
the code but also regression testing it and fixing what the fixes break. At
this time almost all resources are going into new product development and,
given the market conditions, they have to. My feeling is Novell views NW 5 as
their serious delivery platform for the next N years, and earlier versions of
NW will continue to operate with what they have had (plus selected bug fixes).
When one looks at what is coming for NW 5 this is a very reasonable stance:
some big changes in technique. If there was shock at moving from per-server
bindery to per-network NDS for authentication, think what will happen when the
file system is spread across the net (it is coming) or the server workload is
spread across several servers (it too is coming).
	Joe D.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:54:53 -0700
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Y2000 on Netware 4.1 ?

	Lesse here. Y2K is two years away. NW 4.10 systems are two or more
years old. By the magic date they will be four or more years old. By then
the server machines will have been replaced probably twice, at least, and
the user machines twice, and the applications more than twice. And you guys
are telling us your business is locked into NW 4.10 for how long?
	Lesse some more. Just what are the Y2K changes that Novell has
issued? The majority are in the sundry utilities, not in area affecting
third party applications. And those third party apps are, of course, Y2K
proven and will not be upgraded either, right?. They could not possibly
evolve to require a more recent foundation, right?
	Putting some numbers into these things can help. Putting emotion in
usually doesn't.
	Joe D.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 14:00:14 -0600
From: Dave Kearns <dkearns@VQUILL.COM>
Subject: Buying NT to spite Novell

For all of you who considered the upgrade cost of $6 to $10 pr user
for NW 4.11, have you priced NT server?

Server + 10 users competitive upgrade is $486. Additional user paks
are: $15 - $28 per user. Of course, you get a single user license with
Win95, so you have to back those out. Of course, for file & print its
recommended you have no more than 250 users per NT server. So for a
single 500 user version of NetWare 4.1 (assuming 300 users have Win95)
the costs are:

NetWare 4.11 upgrade - $2100

NT Server + 10 users - $486 X 2 = $972
20 User license pak - $570 X 9 = $5130
Additional Server Hardware =? $5000

Total NT upgrade cost = $11,102 + installation time + learning curve
+++++

Stop the posturing and cut the POs. If you really think that spending
$11K+ is the way to go, by all means do it. But don't whine at us. And
have fun explaining your reasoning to your CFO...

-dave

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 14:10:19 -0700
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Y2000 on Netware 4.1 ?

>Being a computer consultant, I have many clients with Netware 3.11 and
>3.12.  These servers have been running for years and probably will be
>running for more years to come.  Not every organization have the need,
>necesity, urge or money to upgrade and replace computers and servers
>every two years.  I have 3.11 servers running for more than 4 years and
>they still perform decently  (file and print services).  I have networks
>running Arcnet, with WP5.0 and Lotus 123.  They perform good, and for
>the clients needs is enough.  In the same line I have a few clients that
>I installed NW4.10 two years ago, and they are in the same boat as the
>3.11 guys.  It works, so why reinvest, change and re-learn a new system.
>
>I do not agree to these policeis, but they are my clients, they pay my
>bills, so unless I can come up with a justification on why would they
>need to upgrade, then it is up to them.  Now being a Y2K issue, and that
>their OS would not be compliant, forces them invest in a OS upgrade that
>otherwise would not have come for a few more years.
----------
	Thanks for making my points. Folks like what they have and plan
to use it for some time, and then upgrade. The "and then upgrade" fits
pretty well with the Y2K schedule, does it not? And I'm sure folks are
confident their current disk drives will last and not need expansion. Nor
will folks need new monitors, and certainly their 486-33s doing duty now
will remain perfectly adequate for the same duty two years from now and
them some. And other items to express relative scales of expense and my
general annoyance at one-percent-baked reactions.
	Next you need to talk with those clients and discover if they
will have a Y2K problem, and if so what to do about it other than express
current fad jitters.
	Joe D.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:01:11 -0500
From: Darwin Collins <nov-list@DART.ORG>
Subject: Re: Buying NT to spite Novell

I know what you mean...

Last spring 97, we bought seven 250user and four 100user upgrades
for about $12,000.

VLA licensing is a really good idea.
	http://www.novell.com/programs/ncc/us_la.html

Also, keep an eye out for the upgrade specials that are sometimes
available thru the vendors.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 22:30:32 +0100
From: "Arthur B." <arthur-b@ZEELANDNET.NL>
Subject: Re: Y2000 on Netware 4.1 ? *snip*

>>>Since I've already had a couple of NT servers
>>>added to my network due to applications which
>>>require it, why does Novell assume that I'll upgrade
>>>to INW 4.11 or NW 5 rather than NT 5?
>>>
>>>Is anybody else kind of mystified by Novell's indifference to its
>>>installed base of 4.1 customers?

To add what is already said about this.

Just received in the post mail a floppy from Novell containing an
util called SNIP and a return form. What they are offering is a free
checkup (and free advice concerning the solutions needed to solve
Y2K in your environment) to make sure your Netware software is ready
for 2000. No charge what so ever and it takes about a handfull of
minutes from beginning to end for you to get things started.

I've yet to receive something from MicroSoft that doesn't cost $$$,
time, sweat and no need for extra hardware. And actually helps to
reduce my workload and increase user uptime to the level I'm already
used to with Netware.

Besides, is the NOS the only thing that needs to be replaced/
upgraded in your environment to be ready for 2000? Or do you have
apps, desktops, workstations, real-time clocks, burglar alarms,
pre-printed forms, standard document lay-outs, in-house programming,
planning sheets, etc, etc as well? What are you going to do? Call
each and every manufacturer and demand free replacement? Are you
going to check your ISP, your phone company and every other company
you depand on if they are ready for 2000? Or is it just wait and see?

To anyone considering migrating to a NT-only environment.
Be sure to test were you're going to by creating a multi-server
networked testenvironment. Be sure to simulate everything on it that
is normal to a network over several years. This includes disaster,
mayor upgrades from apps and NOS, restores, replacing an app for one
from another manufacturer, upgrading hardware (eg bigger harddisk,
new NIC), adding extra servers, putting up a remote link,
transferring users from department to department, calling support,
etc.

Don't say: I've already got NT so I know what I'm talking about. No,
try to do everything you do and have done in the last years in a
NT-only environment. Become surprised.

Strange isn't it. If a company decides to buy a new building they
consider thousand-and-one facts before even thinking about making an
offer. What color, highway nearby, parking space, neighbourhood,
maintenance cost, the opinion of external advisors, etc, etc. Those
are good things to consider, but... when it comes to overhaul the
lifeline of the company...

Life long, rich and prosper when you go for NT only 'cause you'll
need that to get things done. Let real-life experience and cold
figure calculations speak for themselves. Test it, proof it, do it.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 10:08:11 +0000
From: Graeme Findlay <gfindlay@INVERESK.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: 99 and the 400 year boundary leap year debate

>Does anyone know if the leap year debate was ever resolved?  I've
>heard leap years work as follows, but I don't know where to verify
>this information:
>	Every 4 years ... leap year
>	Every 400 years ... NO leap year
>	Every 40,000 years ... leap year
>	Every 4,000,000 years ... NO leap year
>	...and so on...
>The reason this is important now is that this effects week days in a
>big way, and the year 2000 is the fifth 400 year boundary.

The rule is that, if it is divisible by 4, then it is a leap year,
unless it is a century where, if it is divisible by 400, then it is a
leap year. This makes 2000 a leap year, as has been confirmed in
various places, including most of the major S/ware and hardware
suppliers (including my Psion 3c, Lotus Organiser, Compaq, etc).

As far as the 40,000 and 4,000,000 go, I will pop back closer to the
time and let you know (once the powers that be, whomever they may be,
decide!)

---------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 12:23:49 -0600
From: Brian Scott <bscott@SYSTEMA.WESTARK.EDU>
Subject: Re: 99 and the 400 year boundary leap year debate

1) If the year is divisible by 4, it is a leap year, UNLESS
2) The year is also divisible by 100, then it's not a leap year,
    UNLESS
3) The year is also divisible by 400, then it is a leap year

2000 is a leap year.  2100 is not.

	http://www.compinfo.co.uk/y2k/disa.htm

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 18:32:45 -0500
From: Israel Forst <iforst@BWAY.NET>
Subject: Re: y2k and Novell - personal pissed off views

We are testing all of our clients hardware and software for y2k issues.

In the case of software unless in is mission critical we rely on the
manufacturer's word.

As far as hardware goes I have found a few utilities that will run
some basic tests and determine if your hardware will roll over gracefuly.
In most cases I have found that they will not (even P150's) but most
will support y2k if you roll the date manually (even some old 386's)

Our servers are all certified by the manufacturers.  My theory is that
Compaq wouldn't take the responsiblity of saying that the Prosigna 200
is y2k compliant unless they have some data to back that claim up.
Otherwise Jan 2, 2000 there will be a whole bunch of lawsuits filed.

I hope that theory is correct.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 16:40:23 +1030
From: Nick Gibbs <ngibbs@AUSTEREO.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Y2K BIOS Compliant

>The Y2K Patches on the Novell Support page state that the Server BIOS
>must be Y2K compliant in order for the NOS software to be Y2K compliant.
>
>Does anyone have an easy way to determine if the BIOS is Y2K compliant,
>other than watching the boot-up date to see if it 2-digit or 4-digit?

Checking with the BIOS manufacturer is the easiest way. Find your BIOS
core date (usually on the bottom line of the boot screen) and check.

>I have one server that shows the BIOS copyright date as "1997", but when
>doing a date command it shows 03/04/98.  Don't know if either of those
>are useful in determining the Y2K compliance.

If the BIOS date is 1997, then it is compliant. From memory, AMI BIOS
with a core date of 15/7/95 or later is Y2k compliant. I'm not sure what
the date is with an Award BIOS.

---------

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 09:48:54 +0100
From: Hans Nellissen <dbphilos@UNI-DUESSELDORF.DE>
Subject: Re: Y2K BIOS Compliant

>The Y2K Patches on the Novell Support page state that the Server BIOS
>must be Y2K compliant in order for the NOS software to be Y2K compliant.
>
>Does anyone have an easy way to determine if the BIOS is Y2K compliant,
>other than watching the boot-up date to see if it 2-digit or 4-digit?
>
>I have one server that shows the BIOS copyright date as "1997", but when
>doing a date command it shows 03/04/98.  Don't know if either of those
>are useful in determining the Y2K compliance.

Search the web for chkbios.exe . That prog. will check your bios, RTC
and some other things.

---------

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 09:33:12 +0000
From: Phil Randal <philr@HWCCES.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Y2K BIOS Compliant

>>The Y2K Patches on the Novell Support page state that the Server BIOS
>>must be Y2K compliant in order for the NOS software to be Y2K compliant.
>>
>>Does anyone have an easy way to determine if the BIOS is Y2K compliant,
>>other than watching the boot-up date to see if it 2-digit or 4-digit?

Visit
	http://www.year2000.com
and you'll eventually find links to BIOS checkers.

>Checking with the BIOS manufacturer is the easiest way. Find your BIOS
>core date (usually on the bottom line of the boot screen) and check.

>If the BIOS date is 1997, then it is compliant. From memory, AMI BIOS
>with a core date of 15/7/95 or later is Y2k compliant. I'm not sure what
>the date is with an Award BIOS.

Checking the BIOS date is no guarantee.  I have a MicroStar Pentium
motherboard at home which had a BIOS dated August 1996 which was not
compliant.  I found a later one at their web site which does the
trick, though.

For details of available Flash BIOSes, check out Wim's BIOS page at
	http://www.ping.be/bios

Even if you don't know the manufacturer of your motherboard you
should be able to identify it via the above site.

---------

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 09:53:49 -0700
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Y2K BIOS Compliant

>The Y2K Patches on the Novell Support page state that the Server BIOS
>must be Y2K compliant in order for the NOS software to be Y2K compliant.
>
>Does anyone have an easy way to determine if the BIOS is Y2K compliant,
>other than watching the boot-up date to see if it 2-digit or 4-digit?
>
>I have one server that shows the BIOS copyright date as "1997", but when
>doing a date command it shows 03/04/98.  Don't know if either of those
>are useful in determining the Y2K compliance.
--------
	My goodness. What could be simpler than one minute booting the
machine at the Y2K boundary? No third party guessing involved.
	Joe D.

---------

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 12:09:36 +0000
From: Steve Kurz <skurz@NORFOLK.INFI.NET>
Subject: Re: Y2K BIOS Compliant

>My goodness. What could be simpler than one minute booting
>the machine at the Y2K boundary? No third party guessing involved.
>	Joe D.

That will test for the date rollover, but there are also leap year
issues that need to be determined. One of the NSTL programs tests for
all of this in one swell foop.

---------

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 10:28:46 -0800
From: Jeff Groetsema <jgroetsema@UNIX1.CC.UOP.EDU>
Subject: Re: Y2K BIOS Compliant

Checking the date on the BIOS is not reliable, Phoenix and AMI WEB sites
both state this (see their sites for reasons).

If you can't do the manual check, a quick search of Internet sites will
provide many tools to do this for you.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 13:25:01 -0600
From: Dave Kearns <dkearns@VQUILL.COM>
Subject: Re: Y2000 on Netware 4.1 ?

>It must be nice to have a great budget to
>always move with the bleeding edge of technology.

NetWare 4.11 was released 2 years ago. NetWare 5 will be released this
year. By 1/1/00, it will hardly be 'bleeding edge'

>You see we all don't have the same type of budgets.
<snip>
>keep in mind that all budgets are not created equally.
>Maybe you have the luxury of changing applications
>and hardware that often, but we
>never have and probably never will.

I'm sure your institution isn't destitute. Therefore, its a question
of how they choose to spend their money. If they've decided that the
millennium bug isn't something they need to worry about, that's hardly
Novell's fault, is it? Perhaps you haven't convinced them of the
possible adverse affects that not upgrading might have. Or perhaps
you're not convinced yourself that this is anything to worry about.

---------

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 12:32:22 -0700
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Y2000 on Netware 4.1 ?

>>	Lesse here. Y2K is two years away. NW 4.10 systems are two or more
>>years old. By the magic date they will be four or more years old. By then
>>the server machines will have been replaced probably twice, at least, and
>>the user machines twice, and the applications more than twice. And you guys
>>are telling us your business is locked into NW 4.10 for how long?
>>	Lesse some more. Just what are the Y2K changes that Novell has
>>issued? The majority are in the sundry utilities, not in area affecting
>>third party applications. And those third party apps are, of course, Y2K
>>proven and will not be upgraded either, right?. They could not possibly
>>evolve to require a more recent foundation, right?
>>	Putting some numbers into these things can help. Putting emotion in
>>usually doesn't.
>>	Joe D.
>
>It must be nice to have a great budget to always move with the
>bleeding edge of technology. You see we all don't have the same type
>of budgets. One of my servers is still running NW3.11 and  has been
>for 5 or 6 years or longer. Yes, we still have some IBM XTs
>runnning on our Network ( though the are finally dwindling). But keep
>in mind that all budgets are not created equally. Maybe you have the
>luxury of changing applications and hardware that often, but we
>never have and probably never will.
>
>John Hanna
----------
	Does anyone else feel that both parts above are highly predictable?
My budget is very small indeed. Scrimping and saving and making do with
clone servers is normal. So I understand fully what it means to live on
no money. But... things change and even progress. Our client machines in
particular rollover quickly from user demand, that is where hardware money
goes in large quantities, and software versions change once or twice a
year, and money for those apps is where most of our software money goes.
It is surprizing how many do change, from one bugetary corner or another.
	I find it difficult to accept that a serious site will sit on the
same components (hard and soft) for say 5-7 years and still say they will
continue to do so for another 2 or more. That said, there is always a tail
to a distribution function which goes out several standard deviations. XTs?
Good grief, you have our collective sympathy.
	From traffic on the list there seems to be a significant number
of sites running NW 4.10 who say they decline to change for many years.
I don't believe most of that, as openers, but some will remain fixed. So
their task is to take the case to Novell and hope for consideration. And
that means taking it to Novell, such as contacting your regional Novell
office and clicking on Novell's web page. Please keep in mind that the
company has to balance allocation of resources between fixing older
products and developing new ones.
	Joe D.

---------

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:41:41 +0000
From: Richard Letts <r.j.letts@SALFORD.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Y2000 on Netware 4.1 ?

>>	Lesse here. Y2K is two years away. NW 4.10 systems are two or more
>>years old. By the magic date they will be four or more years old. By then
>>the server machines will have been replaced probably twice, at least, and
>>the user machines twice, and the applications more than twice. And you guys
>>are telling us your business is locked into NW 4.10 for how long?
>
>It must be nice to have a great budget to always move with the
>bleeding edge of technology. You see we all don't have the same type
>of budgets. One of my servers is still running NW3.11 and  has been

Strangely enough, whenever I've spoken with Joe or read his email in
another place I get the impression he runs his labs on a shoestring.
{and occasionally it sounds like his own shoestring}

If he had the money he'd have Compaq servers and not do any testing and
share interesting and valuable results with us.

---------

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:37:34 -0700
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Y2000 on Netware 4.1 ?

>>>Lesse here. Y2K is two years away. NW 4.10 systems are two or more
>>>years old. By the magic date they will be four or more years old. By
>>>then the server machines will have been replaced probably twice, at
>>>least, and the user machines twice, and the applications more than
>>>twice. And you guys are telling us your business is locked into
>>>NW 4.10 for how long?
>>
>>It must be nice to have a great budget to always move with the
>>bleeding edge of technology. You see we all don't have the same type
>>of budgets. One of my servers is still running NW3.11 and  has been
>
>Strangely enough, whenever I've spoken with Joe or read his email in
>another place I get the impression he runs his labs on a shoestring.
>{and occasionally it sounds like his own shoestring}
>
>If he had the money he'd have Compaq servers and not do any testing and
>share interesting and valuable results with us.
>
>Richard Letts
--------
	Richard is correct on all counts. Shoe strings, and often my own.
But even then technology changes and there is a need to stay somewhere close
to the active center. I run public facilities and private ones, and the
public ones require equipment and software to be reasonably current to
satisfy customers who eventually pay for the facility. The task of making
that happen (technically, financially, managerially) falls on the poor
system manager (me in this case). Thus cases have to be made and argued for
years running to get enough to make jumps from one technology to another.
I regard this as intrinsic to being a proper system manager.
	My private servers come almost entirely out of my own pocket, aided
now and then by donations to the Univ from companies. This week AMD sent me
a K6-233 CPU in appreciation for some assistance rendered, and that will
appear in my gear once new supporting structures (motherboard etc) are
purchased. NW 5 beta is running on an ancient ex-server machine otherwise
due for the scrap heap. Here it is important to note that if I can do it
then larger organizations can do so selectively and wisely.
	As stated previously, I sense that much of this NW 4.10 != Y2K
talk is just talk, emotional outpourings at sensed being left behind, and
the organizations will have moved beyond that stage in two years. If they
decline then the Y2K effect can bite, and upgrading NW will be the smaller
part of their problems. I view these kinds of upgrades as progressive: they
open up opportunities as well as support today's applications.
	In the US Professors generally go to class or find another line of
work, but they don't dirty their hands with reality. Professional courtesy
forbids me commenting further.
	Joe D.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 14:10:38 CST
From: "Eric M. Niewoehner" <Eric_M._Niewoehner@MUCCMAIL.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Y2K BIOS Compliant

>My goodness. What could be simpler than one minute booting the
>machine at the Y2K boundary? No third party guessing involved.
>	Joe D.

This discussion piqued my interest.  I visited the www.year2000.com
website and finally reviewed a Y2K diagnostic.  My Gateway 2000 P5-133
computer was discovered to have a non-compliant Real Time Clock.  I am
retrieving information from Gateway to see what is actually myth and
what is fact.  But according to the diagnostic tool, a turned off
computer will be considerably confused when it is turned on after the
Y2K roll-over.  The RTC will indicate the year 1900.

---------

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 20:21:07 -0500
From: Israel Forst <iforst@BWAY.NET>
Subject: Re: Y2K BIOS Compliant

>This discussion piqued my interest.  I visited the www.year2000.com
<snip>

Your RTC probably supports Y2K but it requires a manual rollover.
Many PCs I have tested suffer the same thing. All you need to do is
set the date to the correct date on 01/01/2000 and you will be as
Y2K compliant as the rest.

---------

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:53:24 +0000
From: Guy Dawson <guy@CROSSFLIGHT.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Y2K BIOS Compliant -Reply

>Maybe I'm missing something, but as long as the workstation in question
>does not have a fit when it's time is set to 1/1/2000 I don't see a real
>problem as (at least at my site) all the workstation PC clocks are reset
>to the server/network time when they log in.  I just have to make sure
>all the servers and the network time will handle the roll over to
>1/1/2000.  Hardware problem solved, right?

Nope - if the RTC can't hold post Y2K dates, even though your date
setting s/w has written a correct date to it, you can't read it
back. It's a case of the weakest link in the chain.

---------

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:55:23 +0000
From: Guy Dawson <guy@CROSSFLIGHT.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Y2K BIOS Compliant -Resolution (mostly)

Randy Richardson wrote:
>Since we're all using Novell products here, the workstation time and
>date is by default synchronized to the server, so therefore we need
>only worry about the server.

It's not so simple - on the workstation, a piece of Novell s/w gets the
(lets assume it's correct) time from the server and 'sets the
workstation time'. Later a piece of software on the workstation
'gets the workstation time'.

The problem lies in what happens between the setting of the workstation
time and the getting of it again. Is it stored in a Y2K compliant
manner? If not then you're going to get the wrong time in your
applications.

This is something that is outside the control of the Novell products.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 21:34:24 +0100
From: "Arthur B." <arthur-b@ZEELANDNET.NL>
Subject: Re: Y2K - upgrade or not to upgrade?

>I strongly agreed with Phil's suggestion. Novell should provide a special
>price to encourage existing NW3.11 & NW4.1 users to migrate to NW4.11 or
>NW5 (which supports NATIVE IP). In Malaysia, there are lots of netware
>users who are thinking of migrating to NT just because of this issue.
>Although I had tried to convince them the greatness of NDS for network
>management (to reduce TCO) but to no avail.
>
>I think Novell had better does something before it is too late.
>
>>Although I admit that some of the arguments recently put forth in this
>>forum aplogizing for Netware's failure to support Y2K under 4.1 are
>>reasonable, I think that a special upgrade price for 4.1 customers would
>>be a smart move. It would be much easier to stem the NT tide if I could
>>show a commitment of this nature from Novell to the higher-ups.

This is so simple.
If you're having objections towards upgrading now just to solve the
Y2K issue simply wait.

Simply wait and upgrade to NW5 (NW6???) when you really have to and
solve your Y2K problems while getting a lot more in one swift move (by
that time there will be a NW5.1 version at least). That will justify
the upgrade costs big time.

Simply wait and gain advantages for a price you'll never get when
migrating to NT now or then.

Simply wait and have time left to check out all those other
applications, BIOSes and RTC's that aren't Y2K-compliant you have
hidden in your system somewhere. Believe me, they are out there.
You'll be surprised once you look into this matter.

Simply wait and have time to test what you're searching for in a test
environment. At least then you'll get a step-by-step migration plan
based upon experience without hurting your operational network because
of surprises and other "didn't you know that...?".

Simply wait and have time to calculate the real costs involved when
upgrading and/or migrating platforms in a production environment. Yet
again, you'll be surprised. Depanding on the size of a company an
admin can save the company a year salary by simply waiting before
upgrading/ migrating th emajor platform. IOW what costs less money in
all: upgrade/ migrate now and next year. Or wait a year and upgrade
only once?

Then to the question if Novell should or shouldn't supply an even
cheaper upgrade.
Test in a testnetwork what migrating would cost your company and what
is really needed and compare that with the cost of an upgrade of your
current platform. Surprises are awaiting you. Depanding on how
real-life you conduct your tests ofcourse. Also, you gain information
to proof your opinion to the management. Who knows, perhaps a mixed
environment is the best solution for your company.

IOW before you say that Novell should supply cheaper upgrades you
should calculate what you are talking about. And what the profits are
for your company when you upgrade. Who's getting the better bargain,
hmmm? Any idea what the costs are for Novell? Compare that with what
Microsoft is offering you at what (total) price.

Finally. Y2K isn't a problem. It's a blessing that allows you to
redesign your system and obtain what your company really needs. Make
the best of it. Afterall admins are payed to not think for themselves
but in the interest of the company. And the interest of a company is
to earn money (or provide services) for an as low as possible but
adequate overhead cost. Included in overhead costs are great user
uptime and stability and a very low MTBF. Not forgetting about
security as well.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 22:17:21 -0700
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: NetWare and Y2K

>This is a critical point for Novell. They are currently hemorrhaging market
>share to Microsoft, their stock performance is pitiful and even though they
>made a profit last quarter their revenues are down significantly. All of
>this doesn't bode well for Novell. While, I believe Novell will be around in
>one form or another for many years, they can't afford to lose any customers.
>
>I my case they have definitely disappointed me. I have been loyal to Novell
>for many years and fought many battles against the Microsoft only management
>crowd. I will fight these battles no longer. I will not go to the Executive
>Committee of my company and try to justify upgrading my current NetWare 4.10
>environment to make this Y2K compliant. Their response will be, why don't we
>just spend the money and make the move to NT. I refuse to try to explain
>away Novell's horrible marketing.
>
>In this critical time for Novell they cannot afford the bad PR of this type
>of move, technologically justified or not. Novell needs to be doing things
>better in the technology and marketing departments if they wish to quell any
>of the tide NT is building. They are getting the technology out the door but
>they still fail to understand that marketing is part of the game. If this
>all shakes out differently I will be the first to admit that I was wrong.
>Either way I will be moving to NT and will make the best of that platform
>while avoiding any more political battles regarding NT Vs. NetWare.
--------
	Feel better now? That's good because there is no sympathy waiting
here.
	Let's face some facts. Novell is not deserting you. They are saying
the Y2K change costs money, your money. The cost for NetWare is upgrade to
NW 4.11 or NW 5, something you are very likely to do in any case. I will
not be surprized to learn that your other suppliers are saying the same:
pay for Y2K changes and disruption. Your in-house costs are probably not
small.
	The alternative is MS software, about which you have said not a
word concerning Y2K compliance, nor cost, nor support, nor that your
company really needs a good production system. If you look carefully at
MS' products you will probably be appalled at the lack of quality and
dependabilty, glitter not withstanding, and at the cost to do the work.
So do look carefully, and do report factually; rise above gossip and bias.
	It is about time this whining stopped. Those with justified
business complaints should take them to Novell. You can contact your local
Novell office. You can write or call Mr. Schmidt. You can talk to the
trade rags if you feel vindictive. You can be productive rather than just
wring hands.
	Novell's marketing is non-existent; everyone knows that. We are not
about to change it, though we have tried. Their technology is as good as
it gets in this business, and getting better. Develop your own business'
plans. Get tough, get smart, fight.
	Joe D.

---------

Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 00:28:48 -0800
From: Randy Richardson <randy@INTER-CORPORATE.COM>
Subject: Re: NetWare and Y2K

Well said Joe.  You have my full agreement on this one!

>	Feel better now? That's good because there is no sympathy here.
<snip>
>	Joe D.

---------

Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 10:39:47 +0200
From: Mike Glassman - Admin <admin@IAA.GOV.IL>
Subject: Re: NetWare and Y2K

>Well said Joe.  You have my full agreement on this one!

Likewise.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 00:26:32 -0800
From: Randy Richardson <randy@INTER-CORPORATE.COM>
Subject: Re: NetWare and Y2K - Debate

>This is a critical point for Novell. They are currently hemorrhaging market
>share to Microsoft, their stock performance is pitiful and even though they
>made a profit last quarter their revenues are down significantly. All of
>this doesn't bode well for Novell. While, I believe Novell will be around in
>one form or another for many years, they can't afford to lose any customers.

What?  Novell stock prices have risen from $7 per share to
approximately $11 per share over the last month.  See the following
URL for a graph:

	http://www.tscn.com/wsc/Corporate_Snapshot.html?Symbol=NOVL

Are you working for Novell's competition by any chance?  I suspect
so since you're broadcasting "doom and gloom."

>I my case they have definitely disappointed me. I have been loyal to Novell
>for many years and fought many battles against the Microsoft only management
>crowd. I will fight these battles no longer. I will not go to the Executive
>Committee of my company and try to justify upgrading my current NetWare 4.10
>environment to make this Y2K compliant. Their response will be, why don't we
>just spend the money and make the move to NT. I refuse to try to explain
>away Novell's horrible marketing.

There is a big difference between people who are successful because
they do what's in the best interest of their company, versus people
who give up because it means less emotional pain in the short term.

Even a little long-term planning will show that NetWare 4.11 or
NetWare 5 are the way to go.  Or does management not like to spend
the time and effort required to run a successful business in the long
run?

>In this critical time for Novell they cannot afford the bad PR of this type
>of move, technologically justified or not. Novell needs to be doing things
>better in the technology and marketing departments if they wish to quell any
>of the tide NT is building. They are getting the technology out the door but
>they still fail to understand that marketing is part of the game. If this
>all shakes out differently I will be the first to admit that I was wrong.
>Either way I will be moving to NT and will make the best of that platform
>while avoiding any more political battles regarding NT Vs. NetWare.

I agree that bad PR is not helpful for any company.  More marketing
is definitely an effective way to gain more sales, but it's also an
effective way to run out of money which can result in a lower-quality
product due to less funding for R&D.

I will be staying with Novell products because they are faster,
easier to manage, more stable, more secure (e.g., C2 redbook),
integrate with all platforms, and cost less in the long-term.

---------

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 05:35:39 +0000
From: Jed Proujansky <jproujan@K12S.PHAST.UMASS.EDU>
Subject: Re: NetWare and Y2K - Debate

The debate is not as simple as which is better. My client recently decided
to upgrade our sysatem and add Internet access. We chose to purcahse
an NT product to allow for claims processing over the internet. We
chose Hydra which is a flavor of NT that works like PC Anywhere for
multiple users. It was a clear NT decision. We also bought a Netware
4.11 to upgrade our old 3.12 server. It was also a "no brainer"
decision. Best security, fastest print and file services. This all
works well with our Unix server for claims processing. The fastest
platform for the claims system we use. In this world its often a mix
of platforms to accomplish various tasks.

I am upgrading another network. 10 user 3.12. They decided to go with
Novell 4.11 for Small business. Reason... Cost. Software is about the
same. Hardware was more expensive for the N.T. Reliability /
Support... They felt Novell was a known stable system and
managable.  NT was potentially full of hidden costs.

I lean towards Novell, but see a place for many different operating
systems, most of which have good and bad sides.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 01:20:46 -0800
From: Randy Richardson <randy@INTER-CORPORATE.COM>
Subject: Re: Y2K

>Does anyone knows whether NT 4 is Y2K compliant ? Most of our customers
>intend to migrate from NW4.1 to NT 4 coz' they claim that NT 4 is Y2K
>compliant. Try to search microsoft web page but to no avail. It will be
>easier for me to convince them to upgrade to NW4.11 if NT4 is not Y2K
>compliant. Any articles or study will do. Thanks

Here's a great study (NT domains versus NDS):
	http://www.novell.com/products/nds/nds4nt/wpnds.html

Here are some comparatives used by some effective salespeople:
	http://www.novell.com/partner/competitive/salesguide/netware1.html
	http://www.novell.com/partner/competitive/salesguide/netware2.html
	http://www.novell.com/partner/competitive/salesguide/netware3.html
	http://www.novell.com/partner/competitive/salesguide/netware4.html
	http://www.novell.com/partner/competitive/salesguide/netware5.html
	http://www.novell.com/partner/competitive/salesguide/netware6.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:32:48 +0200
From: Mike Glassman - Admin <admin@IAA.GOV.IL>
Subject: NT 5 y2k issues

The following file was sent out by the Novell EMEA group regarding a
Gartner Group report on NT 5.0 and y2k issues.

Altho this is not the NT group, we all have to deal with this subject
and therefore I thought this might be of interest to all. I have left
the name of the author of the article for copyright issues.


<SNIP>

Attached is an interesting Gartner Group report advising organisations
to stop deploying NT 5.0 for various reasons, including the Y2K issue,
until mid-2000!

We thought, this might be of interest for you....

Kind Regards,
Novell Education Marketing

***********************

	STOP DEPLOYING NT NOW says Gartner Group

February 24, 1998
Distributed Computing Platform (DCP)
Research Note
Strategic Planning
E. Thompson

Windows NT v.5.0 vs. Year 2000: Stop Where You Are

Given the contingencies required for 2000, we advise users to avoid
adoption of  Windows NT version 5.0 until mid-2000.

Core Topic
Hardware & Operating Systems: Windows NT-Based Executive and Deployment
Issues
Key Issue
How will users acquire, manage and dispose of Windows NT-related assets
and know they have the best deal?
Strategic Planning Assumptions
Windows NT version 5.0 will become generally available in 2Q99 (0.7
probability).
Windows NT version 5.0 Service Pack Release 1 will be delivered in 4Q99
(0.7 probability).
Windows NT version 5.0 Service Pack Release 2 will be delivered in
1H2000 (0.7 probability).
Windows NT version 5.0 and the year 2000 crisis will provide a conflict
of interests in 1999. As beta testing progresses, the expectations for
NT v.5.0 are being raised by both Microsoft and the press. Many IT
organizations are defining desktop and server infrastructure projects
for 1998/1999 with NT v.5.0 as an
integral component. We advise caution in implementing NT Server v.5.0
due to the number of new functions and the lack of available skills for
NT Server v.5.0, but mainly because of the conflict of staff resources
with those needed to prepare for 2000.

Many organizations have defined year 2000 policies that mandate no new
applications and infrastructure deployments in the six months before and
after midnight on December 31, 1999. The objective is clearly to
stabilize the operational environment to better handle expected but
unidentified additional year 2000 complications. Although the objective
will not always be workable, as essential modifications to the
infrastructure are required, the basic tenet of  the policy is in direct
conflict with the deployment of a new desktop, NOS and application
server OS.

NT Server v.5.0 is set to deliver more than 30 million lines of code, up
from 8 million in the core of v.4.0 and 5 million in v.3.5.1 (see Note
1). Although Microsoft's testing procedures are maturing and beta
testing is more extensive - 6,000 organizations were involved in Beta 1
and at least 200,000 users will
be involved in Beta 2 - we do not expect the NT v.5.0 launch release to
be trouble free. Therefore, even Type A users should experiment with NT
v.5.0 but wait until the first service pack has been proved to be stable
before widespread deployment. We anticipate that NT v.5.0 Service Pack
Release 1 will
be delivered in 4Q99 (0.7 probability). Given the year 2000 policy
objectives stated above and the implementation time scales of six to
nine months required for large organizations to upgrade OSs, this
provides a clear conflict of resource interests for the IT organization.

Note 1
Lines of Code in Versions of NT Server (Estimates)
Core NT v.3.51 (no IIS): 5 million
NT v.3.51 + IIS:  8 million
Core NT v.4.0: 8 million
NT v.4.0 w/bundled IIS: 12 million
NT v.4.0 EE (IIS, MQS, TS): 16 million
NT v.5 Beta 1: 27 million
NT v.5 Beta 2: 30 million
Final NT v.5 Gold: 31 million
For more-conservative user organizations, we advise waiting until
Service Pack Release 2 is proved stable. NT Server v.5.0 Service Pack
Release 2 will be delivered in 1H2000 (0.7 probability). In
organizations with significant year 2000 exposure or with conservative
infrastructure goals, the position is even clearer: wait until after
2000 and until any remaining year 2000 problems (if any) have been
identified. This decision provides three additional benefits:
the IT organization gains an extended evaluation period for NT v.5.0;
the option of skipping NT Server v.5.0 and waiting for the release of
v.5.x, which should be more tenable; and internal support skills for the
new OS can be developed.

In deciding when to adopt NT v.5.0, potential users of NT Server will
have the harder decision to make, as greater additional functionality
will be included - with greater potential for problems. Moreover, NT
Server requires more planning and would have a greater impact on a
migration project. The conflict between NT Server v.5.0 and year 2000
planning may simplify short-term adoption decisions in 1998 by hastening
the acceptance of NT Server v.4.0, as opposed to waiting for a robust
release of v.5.0. However, if
organizations take this choice, they will have to live with NT Server
v.4.0 for longer than originally expected. This means that plans for the
use of new features in v.5.0 will have to be postponed. Currently, some
of the more important server features include: the Active Directory
Service, multiprotocol routing, support for 32 Gbytes of RAM, improved
security with Kerberos authentication, support for hierarchical storage
management, better hardware support (e.g., for I2O), plug and play and
power management, distributed time synchronization, greater SMP scaling,
improved CPU and memory resource
allocation, the Microsoft Management Console and Zero Administration for
Windows. It will be important for IT organizations to determine which of
these features will be essential and which are just "nice to have" in
order to assess the appropriate time scale for deploying NT Server
v.5.0.
Acronym Key
EE Enterprise Edition
I2O Intelligent Input/Output
IIS Internet Information Server
MQS Message Queue Server
NOS Network operating system
OS Operating system
RAM Random-access memory
SMP Symmetric multiprocessing
TS Transaction Server
Bottom Line: NT Server v.5.0 rollouts will clash with year 2000
planning. We recommend delaying widespread adoption of NT Server v.5.0.
Conservative organizations should avoid NT Server v.5.0 until after the
release of Service Pack Release 2 and plan on using NT Server v.4.x
through year-end 2000.
Type A organizations can risk rollouts during the "blackout period" from
mid-1999 to mid-2000 but should do so with the appreciation that the
rollout may result in conflicts for both internal and external resources
and could risk the level of compliance of previously tested systems.
DCP: SPA-03-4044

------------------------------

