
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NW-vs-NT.DOC -- 19961031 -- Email thread on NetWare versus Windows NT
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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




Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 19:49:51 -0400
From: PowrTekSys@aol.com (Kevin C. McIntosh)
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Re: Netware 4.x vs WinNT

>Why should I recommend NW4.1 over NT?

Netware Directory Services (NDS), On-the-fly file compression, Block
sub-allocation, and Storage Migration Services (SMS).

NDS is a hiearchial relational database that represents your organizations
structure. NDS provides you with objects to indicate each and every resource
available, with detailed information. The Netware Administrator allows you to
administer resources from a single Windows interface, across the entire WAN.
If you run Groupwise, the administration can also be done within NWADMIN.

NT uses Domains, which, I feel, are cumbersome over a WAN. To me, NT Server
isn't much better than running NW v3.1x over a WAN.
I do hear that NT makes a good application server, however, I've heard that
it has some problems with the Sybase Engine.

If you're looking to upgrade to Windows '95, NT is ready for it. Right now,
there isn't a 32-bit client that supports the NDS. There is an Alpha version
on Novell's FTP site, but I don't recommend running Alpha or Beta versions of
anything on production servers. I have seen clients ABEND servers even though
some people say this can't happen..

Personnally, I see Windows NT Workstation taking over the corporate desktop.
The next version, due the end of this year, will feature an Explorer
interface just like Windows '95.

Regarding your hardware, I'd get, at least, 8MBs of memory in your machines.

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

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 02:00:09 -0700
From: nakagama@ix.netcom.com (Ken Nakagama)
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Re: Netware 4.x vs WinNT

>Soon we will be implementing a departmental LAN.  I've had experience
>with 4.0 and 4.1, our other tech person is sold on Windows NT.
>  We'll have a maximum of 150 users, ranging from some XT's (yes, it's
>not a typo . . .), many 4MB Windows 3.1 users, up to a few lucky
>Pentium 16MB, 1Gig users.  Mostly using MS office apps, some WP51.,
>occasional DBase access.
>  Why should I recommend NW4.1 over NT?
>  Why would I use NT instead of NW4.1?
>  Is OS/2 Lan Server a viable contender?
>   (I get a free lunch to "discuss the merits of these NOS's!")

  We run both NT 3.51 and Netware 4.1.  each has it's own merits and
drawbacks.  To say the least, I have several friends at Novell.., none
of whom will concede that NT will eat Netware for dinner.

  I like Netware for what it does best: File & print services across
PC, Mac, Unix and OS2.  I feel Netware does Mac better than Apple.

  I like NT for remote access.  The secure kernal is great as an
application server.

  NT will most likely be hard to beat come Feb96, but Novell will have
a hybrid Unix/Netware OS available.

  As most of us know, NT is really advanced VMS.  Digital almost went
underground by ignoring the Unix world.

  I believe that most future networks will be a hybrid, as would
reflect the internet itself.  Case in point, anyone running Netware and
Windows for WorkGroups ?  If you have Peer to peer enabled, you already
have a hybrid.

  It isn't a case of what is going to overtake one or another, they
will survive.  If everyone agreed on what is best, we would live with
one airline, one auto manufacturer and one spoken language.

Ken
BeanCounter Network Systems
Campbell, California

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

Date: Fri, 01 Sep 1995 23:12:00 +0000
From: NCG!CLEVELAND!Dan@ncgrp2.attmail.com (Dan Rusek)
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu ('internet!bgu.edu!netw4-l')
Subject: Re: Netware 4.x vs WinNT

Steve Clevenger replied to this request with a detailed Word document which
I have converted to text below for those of you who may not have the time or
the tools to get his document.  I feel he really hit the nail on the head,
but I had a few comments of my own:

Novell is simplifying network administration with NDS:
 - Numerous third party companies are in the process of rewriting their
programs to work with NDS.  They extend the NDS schema to include additional
objects and/or properties so their application's data can be stored inside
of NDS as well.  They also write "Snap-In" modules for NWADMIN that an
administrator to access the new objects and properties using NWADMIN.
 Instead of having one  database with network users, groups, printers,.. ,
another for Email, another for host connectivity data,... - each having
their own configuration utility, NDS will provide a central repository for
everything with a single utility to manage it all.
 - Refer to the July issue of the NPA's Network News publication for a really
informative article by Walter Boyd which compares NT and NetWare 4 in the
area of WAN administration.  In his words "NDS is far superior to NT's
domain architecture".

Microsoft should be ashamed to call their domain concept directory services:
 - NT Domains are flat databases, just like the bindery in 3.x.  There is no
resemblance whatsoever to NDS's hierarchical design.  Nor can the database
be broken down into smaller partitions - it's everything or nothing.
 - With NDS, administration can be assigned on a container by container basis
 - with NT and administrator either has rights to all users or no users
unless multiple domains are created which is not a simple process.

NT's administration for even a medium size network is a nightmare
 - Taking existing domains and setting them up as a multiple domain
environment is not a simple task.  Microsoft missed the boat on this one!
 - If you want to remove a domain from a server or place a domain on an NT
server that is not currently a domain controller, you have to re-install!
 - I haven't been able to figure out how to rename a group - it appears that
you have to document it, recreate it, and then delete the old one!
 - I admit, the GUI interface is a pleasure to use, but having to use the NT
admin program to create users and groups and then having to use File Manager
to assign rights doesn't make much sense to me!

The cost factor is a big issue, but I guess I've always felt you get what
you pay for.  Lantastic and Packard Bells are inexpensive too!



Steve's document (hope you don't mind, Steve):


NetWare or Windows NT Server

Advantages of NetWare over NT

1. NetWare has a long track record for providing excellent NOS's (13 years
in
   business).

2. Novell's primary focus as a company is NetWare.

3. There are more third party utilities for NetWare.

4. NetWare provides long term file salvage, allowing recovery of deleted
data
   without restoring from backups.

5. Printing to remote printers (not attached to a workstation) is built into

   the OS with print server devices designed specifically for NetWare
servers.
   There are two ways to print remotely with NT.  One is the DLC protocol
that is
   supported on one NT sub-network.  If you have more than network segment,
DLC
   will not work.  The other method would require NT to emulate a UNIX
server and
   the print server devices to service that emulated UNIX server.

6. Because of NetWare's longevity and popularity, there is a larger base of
   free knowledge available on the Internet, on Compuserve and from NUI user

   groups.

7. NetWare is a very tunable OS.  Parameters can be adjusted to make the OS
   more efficient.

8. NetWare provides NetWare Directory Services (NDS).  NDS is a global
naming
   directory allowing users to login once and access all network resources
that
   support NDS.  As NDS gains in popularity, more and more resources will
become
   NDS compliant.

9. The NetWare server, network protocols and clients are C2 security
compliant.
   NT is C2 compliant at the server only.

10. There are currently no real time virus scanners for NT.  There is a
limited
    number of scheduling virus scanners.

11. Currently all software metering packages require workstation modules.
 This
    consumes already limited resources and makes metering easy to defeat.

12. Windows NT login scrips are practically useless.  They offer no
replaceable
    parameters like NetWare, and in many cases, they run in a DOS VM that
lose
    the script settings once the VM closes.

13. A directory structure that users do not have access to are still visible
to
   users on an NT network.  For example, with NetWare I map a single drive
   letter to a directory called SHARED that has about 50 subdirectories.
   Assume a user only has access to 5 of those directories, which is about
   average.  With NetWare, the user would only see 5 directories.  With NT,
the
   users sees all 50 directories, but recieves an error message when
attempting
   to access a directory he does not have access to.

Microsoft's failed attempts at a NOS

1. MS-Net (1984) was sold directly from MS and OEM'ed to IBM as PCNetwork
and
  then PC LAN, and to 3Com as Ethershare.

2. OS/2 LAN Manager (1988) was sold by Microsoft and OEM'ed to 3Com as 3
plus
   Open.

3. Windows NT and Windows for Workgroups are based heavily on Microsoft LAN
   Manager.

Advantages of NT over NetWare

1. Microsoft's networking client software integrates into Windows and
Windows
   NT workstations better than Novell's counterparts.

2. Windows NT is licensed per client in a domain, instead of per connections
to
   the server.  This could make future expansion less expensive.


I apologize if this has been discussed ad nauseum...
Soon we will be implementing a departmental LAN.  I've had experience
with 4.0 and 4.1, our other tech person is sold on Windows NT.
  We'll have a maximum of 150 users, ranging from some XT's (yes, it's
not a typo . . .), many 4MB Windows 3.1 users, up to a few lucky
Pentium 16MB, 1Gig users.  Mostly using MS office apps, some WP51.,
occasional DBase access.
  Why should I recommend NW4.1 over NT?
  Why would I use NT instead of NW4.1?
  Is OS/2 Lan Server a viable contender?
   (I get a free lunch to "discuss the merits of these NOS's!")

Any and all info, best from those who've worked with both (all
three?), would be very muchly appreciated!

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

Date: Thu, 24 Aug 95 14:04:20
From: "Allen Francom" <afrancom@chrome.com>
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: RE: Netware 4 vs NT...NTAS ?

We use NT, NTAS, OS/2 2.11, Warp, Novell 3.12, and Novell 4.1.
Win95 too, but as little as possible for now.

Novell has good comments regarding how NTAS WILL IN FACT cause
very high CPU utilization if you saturate an ethernet segment.  i.e.,
NT requires a lot of CPU to drive ethernet.  Novell can easily handle
2 to 3 times as much Ethernet traffic with the same amount of
CPU power.

NT can serve some neat applications, faxing, com gateway, and be a
file server all at the same time, but all these things really slow it
down.  We use NTAS with MS SQL Server and admittedly, it works great.

All our file service and printing is done by Novell, and it looks like
we're going to keep it that way.  We don't see enough benefit to change
to NT, although we do see enough benefit to use it in addition to
Novell.

I don't see it as a "This or That" issue.

Do you make your users choose between Word Perfect and Word ?

It's kinda the same thing with NOS's lately.  They can all coexist
peacefully, each doing their own special thing.

We don't use any OS/2 File Server stuff, but we do use it as an
application server. NT DOES NOT run DOS apps very well, and we
have a lot of in-house DOS apps that need to be served.

Our communications gateway is Netware Connect.  I don't have the
direct experience to say it works better than NT's RAS, but
I've heard it works better.  NT seems to be more nicely integrated
with Chicago and Workgroups, for this purpose however.

150 Users ?

If you go NTAS, make SPECIFIC PURPOSES for your NT servers.  Don't try
and make one or two do all kinds of things, and don't try and use
one big central one unless you want to try multi-processing hardware.

Making a hybrid has been fun, not totally easy, but it all works
pretty much by the book.

What are your people trained for ?  Windows, and NT, or Novell
background ?

NT is cool 'cause you can CLICK until it works, even if you don't have
the world's greatest networking background.

Novell needs a little more esoteric occult type knowlege and
experience - BUT there are an awful lot of Novell CNE's and
good network vendors -

I'm even considering UnixWare for certian applications.

There is Novell for OS/2, so the OS/2 box runs as a Novell server.
It can still do OS/2 things while serving as Netware.

Hope this helps.  I guess, if you're a novice and you need to make it
go yourself personally, you may opt for NTAS.  Otherwise, if you're
like me, you'll build your fundamentals on Novell, and add whatever
odd-ball stuff later.

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

Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 12:12:43 -0800
From: Ken Eshelby <eshelbyk@UCS.ORST.EDU>
Subject: Re: Should we go Novell or NTAS?

>>Virtual Memory is NOT a plus, as far as I'm concerned. If my server needs
>>more RAM, then i'll give it more RAM. Using (relatively) slow disk access
>>for RAM paging simply cuts the thruput of the server to an abysmal level.
>>
>>If you're running server-based applications that are infrequently used
>>(e.g., backup) then use a scheduler to load and unload it as needed.
>>
>>>
>>>Not only that, but I was thinking today (lots of smoke in the air) that the
>>>obvious thing that Netware seems to be missing is ... VIRTUAL MEMORY.
>>
>>This is another place were you can see NetWares orgigin. It is a specialized
>>file/print and application server. It's not meant to run software that is
>>infrequently used. Of course, today app servers get more an more common,
>>and you end up with applications that runs not very often, so Virtual memory
>>starts to get useful on an application/file server too.
>>
>>(The specific backup case is easily fixed with 'cron'-programs for NetWare,
>>btw.)

>A scheduler, cron, or whatever, requires me to think about what has to run
>when and is an unnecessary complication, particularly because it's not
>included with ths OS (and not to mention, a giant step backwards).  The
>machine should take care of things like this AUTOMATICALLY.  No wonder
>nobody likes programming application NLMs for Netware (compared to NT).
>Like it or not, magnetic MBs are cheaper than silicon MBs and our
>applications have continued to grow beyond what can economically be held in
>silicon MBs.  A server OS should be able to dedicate certain RAM to caching
>and have other RAM for applications be page-able.  That doesn't impair
>performance and solves the RAM problem painlessly.
>
>Carl Houseman, Senior Network Specialist, Network Services

Hi Carl (all),

  Sorry to dredge up this (part of the) thread again, but I think it touches
upon some issues important to an "X vs. Y" argument- I've commented on some
things I'm continually learning as a network engineer.

  I've tried to preserve this thread as best as I could...

(Necessary "Where I'm Coming From" Stuff)
  I manage about 4 LANs at any particular time, in various capacities, and have
found no reason to move towards a networking operating system that serves
files/printers/applications and provides integral management features (knock
on wood!).  Our databases are house on systems optimized to house databases,
and our access tools are developed to access these systems.  Our model
reflects some $$ available, so we do have a certain amount of freedom to not
have to rely on an integral LAN-based solution for many of our production
system requirements.

(The Plug, with Reasoning)
  In that sense, I have yet to find a better file server than NW 3.12.  I need
fast/reliable file service, and Netware 3.12 seems to be the best *for that
requirement*.  However, I do agree with you that some value-added features
would make management a little easier.  The problem that I see arising is that
the focus can shift away from the core of Netware, the file server, and onto
value-added components/features/"looks".  In this sense, I would much rather
see a slew of third party products that are developed to work within the
bounds of the OS rather than the OS branch out into other services.  I have
implemented many a management tool for managing user accounts, our production
Windows enviroment, and some simple status tools, including a CRON-PC based
virus checking and sets of reporting scripts.

(The Philosophy Piece)
  In a sense, I prefer to manage my server vs. my server ending up managing me.
I would rather shoulder the responsibility of management, with tools that I
either purchase or create, than tools that an OS provides- it's a large
contingency problem.  So, I guess this concern is really a matter of
perception- do you perceive your file server as a solution to management (I
took your comments about task scheduling as a piece of a bigger requirement),
or as a file server?

(The Trailer)
  Anyone that can create a product that fits my needs, whether they be
management, file services or the like, gets my total respect, admiration, and,
the bottom line, dollars.  I have never expected an OS, and especially a
networking OS, to do this alone.

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

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 06:36:05 -0500
From: Doug Dubis <dubisd@HLTHSRC.COM>
Subject: Connecting NT Workstation to NetWare 3.12/4.1 - Reply

>Does anybody have any information or pointers to information on
>connecting an NT Workstation 3.51 to a NetWare 3.12 environment or
>4.1NDS environment.

Beware of Broadcast storms, if you have a lot of NW servers with
multiple NICs and/or routers.  NT sends out a NETBIOS / IPX Pscket 20
which can cause the storms.  Check out "On The Wire"  Network
Computing Mag from August or September.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 16:59:21 +0200
From: root <root@GIL-GALAD.PARADIGM.CO.ZA>
Subject: Re: NT as a file server

This maybe off topic but I feel it needs to be said about NT on the Novell
list.

We've used NT "so called advanced server" 3.51 & believe me you're going
to suffer if you do not get the additional add-in's for it.  1st of all
it does NOT support transaction tracking - If the server crashes it WILL
corrupt files - sometimes files that were'nt open for days.  The
file-corruption is no joke it is a reality.  There are 3rd-party add ons
to get transaction tracking working but we did not try them.  2nd of all
there are no way to undelete files on NTFS once you delete a file its
disk blocks are allocated to a file called free-store that you will find
nowhere on the system - again there is no software available for it from
MS you have to get 3rd Party sw.  3rd of all there is no way to disable
logins other than the login times - no fix for that.  There is also some
kind of memory leak I could not locate in any driver but the mem usage
kept creeping up & up & ....  Oh yes there is also no quotas & if you
share any dirs of the boot drive be sure not to fill it up - remember
OS/2 chashing if the swapfile cannot grow when it needs to - Well NT has
the same problem.  NT is basically Lanman 2.1 mixed with Windo$e &
slOwS/2 1.3 put on steroids & called an OS because it does not use DOS.

Oh yes there's one more thing trustees have to be added recursively into
subdirs or the previously acting trustee rights will still be active one
layer deeper.

Anybody can flame me on this one but NW beets NT anytime.  The conversion
from lanman 2.1 to NT took 2-3 weeks because of hassles with their
migration util - it crashed the OS/2 1.3 machine every 30 minutes.  The
conversion from NT to NW with restructuring of the data on the server
took 7 hours.  The NT server ran at 60 - 80 % utilization quite
frequently & for a long time.  The only clients functioning properly is
were WFW but since a large department were using OS/2 we got a taste of
the BAAAD!!! OS/2 client - we had to hack the client & use PROTMAN from
IBM Lan req to get it working...

The other problem is about Netbeui & workgroups. Do not add more than 40
workstations in a workgroup & if the whole of the network is larger than
40 workstations pse consider something else because then the performance
drops about 40%

Bennie Venter

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 20:01:28 GMT
From: David Chamberlain <davidc@SMMS.COM>
Subject: Re: Windows NT or Novell 4.x?

>I am currently running 100 user 3.12 LAN with heavy DataBase use. I have
>been confronted by the Director of IS about going to NT. Any thoughts?

I would ask your IS Director what he expects to get from going to NT.  We
recently made the switch.  Before we switched I was given all of these
wonderful reasons.  Here are some results.

Reason:
  It will perform better.

Result:
  We went from a 66 Mhz 486-DX2 with 64MB of RAM on an EISA buss, a Mylex EISA
DAC960 disk array controller and a 3Com EISA FDDI nic; all running NetWare.

  We went to a 133 Mhz Pentium, also with 64 MB of RAM on a PCI buss, a Mylex
PCI DAC960P disk array controller and a Network Peripherals PCI FDDI nic,
running Windows NT.  It got visibly slower.

Reason:
  It is easier to manage.

Result:
  With NetWare, I used the following programs:  SYSCON, PCONSOLE and RCONSOLE;
to manage the NetWare server.  I could log in and run these programs from any
workstation.

  With NT, I use File Manager, Event Viewer, Server Manager, RAS Admin, Print
Manager, User Manager and Performance Monitor.  Since all of these are NT
programs, I have to come back to my workstation or the server to manage
anything.

  I also have to remember to use Server Manager to resynchronize the Domain
everytime I make a change to user settings.  I have to use File Manager to
manually copy the login script files to all of Domain Controllers, because if I
don't, I must wait 5 to 10 minutes for Directory Replication to work.

  When I want to set user's access to directories on the server, I have to set
each directory ACL (Access Control List) individualy.  This is because NT ACL's
are non-hierachial, and if you use File Manager to copy ACL's to
sub-directories, it erases any other ACL's that may be in the directory.

Final Word:
  I could go on for hours.  My advice to you is to clearly define the
objectives you want to achieve by using Windows NT.  Then learn enough about NT
to know you are achieving the objects, and understand what you are giving up.

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

From: rgrein@halcyon.com (Randy Grein)
Subject: Re[2]: packets flowing  at startup
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Date: 1/17/96 5:42 PM

>Randy,
>
>You brought up something I would like to do.... And I was hoping that
>you might have some information for me on doing it. I would like to
>use Win 95 from home to attach to a Win 95 machine in the office. I
>currently have a Xyplex remote access server, which supports PPP for
>our home users. I would like to be able to see the Win 95
>workgroups/domains from home. What would need to be enabled to allow
>this through the Xyplex (It acts as a router)?  I know this is kinda
>off the topic of Netware 4.1, but I am curious nonetheless.

John,

I don't really think this is off topic too much. The easy way to do this is
install an NT server with a modem and do RAS. Yeah, not practical, but it's
the easy way. MS can use tcp (hahahahahahahahaha) to do this type of
connection, with a ppp link on a third party router, but:

You'll need to give the PPP link an IP address
You'll need to set up your home machine for a dialup link, attach tcpip to
it (hint: look in the control panel, under networks)
set up an LMHOSTS file naming your office machine
log into the workgroup at the office
pray, pray pray

I haven't done this myself yet, but the proceedure should work.

"SOAPBOX WARNING - IF YOU'RE PUT OFF BY VALID TECHNICAL CRITICISMS OF
MICROSOFT, DON'T READ THE FOLLOWING"

The reason for the laughter earlier is MS tcp connections; it's the biggest
joke I've seen, with the exception of the near-universal acceptance of this
junk as "modern networking". The reasons for the above convolutions are
Netbios on TCP - Name resolution relies on either broadcasts, point to
point, or a combination, and of course only between netbios machines.
Broadcasts are filtered out by routers (bet you didn't know that, did you?
I didn't until I started working with it), to keep down traffic, so you
have to preconfigure an explicit ip address to get across. That's where the
LMHOSTS file comes in. If anything changes, you've got to change it. Of
course, if routers used netbios we wouldn't have the problem - we just need
to replace all the routers in the internet with quad pentium NT boxes!
(GBG, ROFL) Seriously, this is a major problem - if anyone comes to you
claiming that NT has native tcp support and therefore is better than
netware on a WAN, you now know how to laugh in their face. NT also has some
shortages with IPX - IPX/SPX emulation is still spotty, with several known
problems, it doesn't handle LIP (large internet packets) or NLSP, and it
STILL uses netbios on top of ipx.

"END OF SOAPBOX"

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 20:48:29 -0800
From: "Richard K. Acquistapace" <acquista@NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Novell vs. Windows NT

If you read LAN Times, pick up the January 22, Vol. 13, issue 2.  Begin
your homework on page 65.  You will get an idea of how 4.1 stiffles NT.
Don't base your choice on an article or one persons opinion (although I
would prefer NetWare).  You have a lot of learning ahead of you.

It's your decision.  Go Novell!

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 21:26:50 -0800
From: Todd Scheven <todds@LANSLIDE.COM>
Subject: Re: Windows NT vs Netware

>Anybody have any thoughts on whether a person should use Novell or
>Windows NT?

According to "people that know" at Comdex PacRim last week, Netware will
remain the standard NOS for file and print services and NT will be utilized
in conjunction with NW as an application server.

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 08:31:51 -0800
From: Mark Schoonover <schoonom@CCMAIL.SGO.SONY.COM>
Subject: Re: Novell vs NT? ( Long )

I'm sure you're getting big responses to this question, but in a
way, you're comparing apples and oranges. Netware was designed from
the ground up to be a file/print server, while NT is designed to be an
application server with file and print services included. I could give
you a laundry list of the differences between the platforms, but in a
nut shell, this is what I've been using to determine which system to use.

If you're looking at using any sort of application that requires
an application server ( Like a back end database, CAD/CAM system,
document imaging systems etc. ) that requires server based processes,
( much like UNIX ), then NT is possibly the best choice. I'm saying
possibly simply because I don't know if running applications on the
server are the priority. If you need an equal amount of performance in
file/print services as well as applications, then NT can still provide
that for you, but at a cost of more hardware. Possibly SMP with gobs
of RAM. If you need the best possible file/print services, then 3.12
is tops in that area.

NT and 4.1 ( I can feel the heat coming on this one! ) are pretty much
neck and neck in terms of performance of file/print services with one
processor. By adding more processors, and keeping the amount of NICs/SCSI
cards the same, then NT will start to edge out 4.1. I use all three on a
daily basis. Most of the servers are Compaq Proliant 1500s, all with 64MB
RAM. The one thing that I have noticed with NT is that when an application
goes south, it doesn't bring down the NOS like a bad NLM can do to 3.12,
just the application crashes. SO! Which is best for you? That's harder to
answer without knowing your environment. Comments are welcome.

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 11:12:44 -0600
From: Chris Parker <parkerc@MAAS.NET>
Subject: Re: Novell vs. Windows NT

>Anybody have any thoughts on whether a person should use Novell or
>Windows NT?

Background first - I am a CNE and MCP (Microsoft Certified Professional (for
Windows NT Server)), for whatever those certifications are worth...?
My company has 6 Netware Servers and 3 NT Servers; all connect to a large
WAN (also to Legacy systems...) Netware is the primary file, print, and
application server.  NT is used primarily as a SQL server, but also does
some of the file, print, and application services.  For my organization
Netware has a purpose and NT has a purpose; they coexist peacefully (and
rather nicely and that.)  I have set up LANs with Netware and NT
(seperately.)  Each NOS works great if it is setup correctly and you
understand the limitations each has.

For a small network (like yours) EITHER will work fine.  That said, other
factors should be considered in the decision:

Who is going to support the system
	Make sure there is a reseller/consultant in your area who
can support it WELL

How important is security
	Chart the security model of both NOSs
	NTs model will vary dramatically depending on the client (NT
workstation and Win95 clients being strongest) and
	file system.  NTFS offers file system security, FAT doesn't.

These are just a few examples.  Your local expert consultant in each NOS
can tell you more.

Know what features you want out of your NOS.  You seem to know your basic
requirements (as you stated in the message).  As one respondent suggested,
have a reseller setup a network with each NOS.  Have them show you
administration on each.

Again, know the limitations and methods of each system.

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 07:30:06 GMT
From: "John D. Gaddis CNE" <gaddi@CYBERSPY.COM>
Subject: Re: Multiple servers, logins

>"I have two servers, each governed by the same nds structure.
>Is it necessary to have a user to be logged into each of these
>servers to access their resources..."
>
>Actually, I should have stated my concern as whether or not accessing the
>resources of each of the services under the hood of the NDS must require
>a tick on the concurrent license utilization on each of the servers.
>I have several users that need to concurrently access several servers,
>but I'm not happy with their having to utilize that many licenses. Am I
>just cheap or am I not fully utilizing the features of nds?  thanx.

NDS is structured so that one licensed connection is used to login into
the tree. Not a server at all, that is Bindrey al-la 3.1x and down.
NDS is a global three dimensional database that is object oriented
linking each and every server in the tree structure. If they have
access to the resource then once they have logged into the "TREE" they
have access to any "Leaf object" that resides in any "Container
Object" that they have rights too... Also if you do not upgrade every
server at the same time you can have up to 12 - 3.12 servers in a net
sink cluster. This will place the bindrey information into the tree so
that they can access the tree without unneeded connections (attachments).
There are many third party books that would be a good thing for you in
your curve with 4.10...

It is the best and NT bites outright! Although I have been installing NT
at customer's requests. Getting my MCPS with NT 3.51 Srv and WKST but
that is only because of all of the fools jumping into the deep end.
Lot of money dragging them out and giving the LANs CPR!  Grin

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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 08:06:38 -0800
From: "Robert S. Sfeir" <robert@BUYSIDE.COM>
Subject: Re: ...latest patches &  upgrades...

>You  are right that 4.1 is a new paradigm for networking, c.f. 3.x but
>while it more readily handles large networks, it is an excellent system
>for a single-server, 25 node network. NT Server can also handle a single
>server, 25-node network reasonably well. But if people are installing 4.1
>"...without thinking and planning" how does NT Server become "the future"?
>Does it not need thinking and plannlng???

Adding to this, I've seen how NT handles mac platforms (if you call it
handling) and it's nowhere near what Netware 4.1 can do in speed and
reliability!  The difference in speed between 3.12 and 4.1 in my network
environment, single server 30 users, graphics production and database
applications, is well worth the "Upgrade".  To top it all off, NWAdmin it
self is worth the money to manage ANY netware network!... Who wants to stay
in dos for the rest of their Administration career, certainly not me!

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

Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 11:02:59 -0800
From: Randy Grein <rgrein@halcyon.com>
To: "NetWare 4 list" <netw4-l@bgu.edu>
Subject: Re: Application Servers

>I read that Windows NT is a good application server and Netware is not,
>but what is the definition of an application server?

What follows may be offensive to MS loyalists or MIS managers. These
thoughts are my own, and condense what I've learned in the past 7 years
in computing. Feel free to correct, comment or blast away.

(Soapbox on)
Others have answered the question well, but I'd be careful accepting the
above claim without a little thought. (No putdown on you, Steve) Netware
servers have been used as application servers since before Windows 3.1,
and the applications available to do so are becoming affordable, easy to
use and fairly common. Oracle, Groupwise, MHS, Soft Solutions, and
Laserfishe are just a few of the applications running on Netware servers.

The claims about NT application services generally revolve around RPC
support, MS SQL and the admittedly good VB tools - in other words, you
can 'roll your own' application in house. This is what I keep hearing
about from Redmond and the MIS types, anyway. Of course there are
available applications using these features, and I believe that's what
most of us would be interested in. How many of us have the time to write,
debug and maintain an inhouse, mission-critical application, much less
put it on a client/server platform? Darn few outside of the fortune 500.
Even they are having pretty slow going. Witness the problems with that
English bank, (NatWest I believe), which has dropped just such a project
after running WAY over budget and schedule without any usable results. In
fact Novell has been crowing that they just threw out  NT and are
replacing it with Netware 4.1.

Tthis isn't so much a Microsoft or NT problem, however as an indictment
against the high complexity do it yourself projects that are beloved by
MIS departments. Such overruns are common in the mainframe world, now
they're creeping into networking.

I would suggest considering the available applications you are interested
in, then round file the general recommendations of the pundits. If it's
only available on one platform, the issue is pretty well settled. If you
have a choice (even between similar applications on different platforms)
then consider the reliability, security, management and performance of
the applications on that platform and how well it responds to performance
tuning. Demand evidence of scalability with the desired configuration;
this is one of the most misunderstood issues. Nothing scales well much
beyond 1 order of magnatude, and few do that well. NT server, for example
generally requires 4 processors to double the performance of one (with
extra RAM and drives), so be aware that the standard answer to the speed
issue has been DEC Alpha. NetWare SMP, on the other hand is showing
linear scaling through 4 processors (according to Oracle), and Novell has
promised to release new information shortly showing better performance
beyond 4 processors than NT. This last is a claim from marketing, so use
salt with it. At least they're fairly accurate for marketing types.

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

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:02:54 EST
From: Dan Cullinan <25004@2300-S-1.PORTS.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: Which is better Win NT or Novell

>It seems that Win NT can do  more than Novell so is there any reason
>to use Novell?  Is Novell faster?

Yes. PC Mag reviewed both and found that in a 100MB Ethernet server pipe,
NW was more than twice as fast as NT.

>It seems that you only have to pay $495.00 for a Win NT server and
>just buy windows for every client which would make an NT server
>cheaper.

I guess it depends on the numbers of users... You don't pay for the NW
client, just the server. Will one balance the other?? Maybe.

>Can anyone tell me if these are true?
>What are the best reasons to stay with Novell?

Dependability... It's worked well since I've used it [1988] and NT is a
relative newcomer (with Microsoft's network history, I'm staying in touch
with what MS is doing but not recommending the jump to my clients... yet).

>Does anyone know where to find more info on the NOS comparison
>besides Novell and Microsoft's homepages?

Try PCMAG online. They just did the review in their labs, and it's a
relatively thorough testing.

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

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:21:08 -0500
From: "Eliot T. Ware" <etware@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject: Re: Which is better Win NT or Novell

>I have been a die hard fan for Novell for years but I am beginning
>to wonder if I should switch to Win NT.

Please insert Joe D.'s standard dissertation on the difference between
Novell and NetWare.

>It seems that Win NT can do  more than Novell so is there any reason
>to use Novell?

More what?  It is true that there are more applications which run on
NT Server but you need to decide what it is that you want to do on your
particular server.  Also, you need to decide whether you need an
enterprise-class NOS or workgroup class.  If enterprise then NT Server
is sorely lacking in basic requirements like a real directory and a
single point of login.  Yes, I know that you can rig the domain
relationships to emulate a directory but that still doesn't scale well
when you have 30 or more servers.  You'll find yourself getting a little
snitty when trust relationships start dropping like flies.

>Is Novell faster?

In general, yes.  This is highly dependent on what you're trying to do
with the server.  File and print services (NetWare's previous bread and
butter) are faster on NetWare (regardless of M$ marketing hype).
Applications which run on both platforms (and there are precious few)
are usually faster on NetWare.

>It seems that you only have to pay $495.00 for a Win NT server and
>just buy windows for every client which would make an NT server
>cheaper.

You better hope Mr. Bill didn't see this one.  Yes, it's true
most sites implement NT Server in that manner. It's also true that's a
blatant violation of the licensing agreement.  NT Server licensing comes
in two flavors: server-centric and client-centric.  M$ provides a pricing
tool (available on their web site) that will allow you to price out an NT
Server setup.  I strongly suggest you get it.  It's very useful and eye
opening.  Also, many of the applications which run on NT Server require
a separate client-license.  In either case the cost is significantly more
than $495.

>Can anyone tell me if these are true?
>What are the best reasons to stay with Novell?

In my opinion, NetWare is still the best NOS money can buy.  NDS is
absolutely invaluable, the security is rock solid and performance is
outstanding.  However, until developers start writing applications for
NetWare (seems like we've been saying that for years) NT is a fact of
life.  I suggest that a good basic approach is to use NetWare as a
foundation (directory, security, file and print, etc.) and use NT or UNIX
as an application server when it is required or when the performance
is better than the NetWare alternative.  However, under no circumstances
would I base a network on NT Server.

>Does anyone know where to find more info on the NOS comparison
>besides Novell and Microsoft's homepages?

All of the above is based on implementation of both platforms and my
personal/professional opinion/conclusions.  Take it for what it's worth.
Please apply standard disclaimer protecting my employer from my rash and
foolish statements.

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

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:37:02 -0800
From: Mark Schoonover <schoonom@CCMAIL.SGO.SONY.COM>
Subject: Re[2]: Which is better Win NT or Novell

Actually, you're trying to compare apples and oranges. As an overview,
NT is a general NOS/Application server where NW is highly optimized for
file and print services. The best approach to determine which way to go
is to decide WHAT you want to do with your network. I've found that NDS
has it's ups and downs just like NT's domain scenario. In a heavy
environment, NW will beat NT in pushing bits around wires, where I've
found 3.12 is the fastest. As far as databases or imaging systems go,
_I_ prefer NT servers for these applications. Again, decide on what you
need your network to do for you and go from there.

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

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:32:44 -0400
From: "Eliot T. Ware" <etware@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject: Re: NT CLIENTS

Adam Morey wrote:
>NT gateway services for Netware is excellent.  None of my NT users have
>accounts on any netware server, nor do they have the netware client
>loaded, but have access to all the servers just as if they were an NT
>share on my NT server.  The NT servers logs into each server and acts as
>a gateway (performace is beggining to be affeffected by the single
>access point for 30 machines, I wouldn't recommend this with more than
>25 NT clients)
>
>Out of the box NT server puts netware to shame with it's free
>internet-networking ability like FTP, Web Server, 250 user Remote Access
>system, Software Replication, Server Event Logger etc.  Don't get me
>wrong, all things being equal I know Netware serves files faster and is
>a bit more stable (provided you've applied the months latest patches!),
>I'm simply saying that you get a lot more bang for your buck today with
>NT server.

I think that you'll find that "out of the box NT server" will suddenly
become a money pit if you try to support your 300+ users on one NT box.
You could split it between boxes and run 150 per server.  Want a shock?
Ask Microsoft what type of PC they recommend to support just 150 users with
all of the above software running.  You are right about NetWare servers
requiring you to apply the latest service packs, erh, patches.  It is much
more convenient to wait for Microsoft to release their patches, erh,
service packs to correct problems which may or may not have been
acknowledged.  And, oh yes, I love nothing more than having to reboot a
server to load a NIC driver in order to balance a sporadic load problem.

It is so much less convenient to load NLMs on the fly. Oh yeah, there is
that wonderful time spent reloading the patches, sorry, service packs
whenever I change the configuration of the NT server.  Maybe it's just me
that has a *small* philosophical problem with memory (fast) being emulated
by disk (slow) (Swap files) rather than disk (slow) being emulated by
memory (fast) (File cacheing).

>After all that I'll answer the original email by stating that we're
>waiting to see NT 4.0 with the gui, if we like, we'll upgrade all the
>windows 95 in one big operation.

I don't think you mean upgrade...you really mean replace.  Joe D.'s
comments as to the real technical difficulty of upgrading from 95 to NT 4.0
notwithstanding, I'll accept Microsoft at their word that the word is
"replace" not "upgrade".  Welcome to Mr. Bill's world.

>Adam Morey CNE
>Hughes STX
>Network Engineer
>WWW.STX.COM

We've got both here and I'm distressed to see good marketing mean more than
good systems.

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

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 06:00:00 CDT
From: Larry Dolinar <LARRYD@BLDG1.CROUTE.COM>
Subject: Re: NT CLIENTS (full-blown religious war alert)

Mr Morey,

1  Fix your mailer, the formatting is something horrible (MS-Mail?).

2  Remember not to send attachments to the entire list, it's a terrific
   waste of bandwidth.

3  Spare us the blatant Microsoft endorsements on a Netware list.

   We have NTs here, a high proportion for our shop, only because the
   application dictates it, not because we believe it's the future of
   networking.  A year of service packs and non-existent Microsoft tech
   support hasn't changed that opinion.

4  Remember that any OS that states "your configuration has changed;
   reboot now?" scarcely qualifies as the next great thing in client/
   server architecture.

   Interesting that some of the anti-Netware logic centers on how it
   *used* to behave.  Who in their right mind would expect a 386 OS to
   run on a 286 CPU anyway?

5  If Novell will stick to file/print services and Microsoft to
   application services, we'll all be a lot happier.

Thanks for an interesting diversion.

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

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 18:02:58 -0500
From: Mobeen Azhar <mazhar@NEOSOFT.COM>
Subject: Re: NT CLIENTS

In my opionion both have their rightful places in the World
of NOSes.  I prefer Netware as a file/print server and
NT as an application server.

At one site we have 2500+ user accounts (running us about
800 concurrent connections) on a single Netware server
(before you scream at me, there are reasons for this -
and no, this is not the only server at the site).  We
have no problems and get great performance.  We also
have two NT machines running MS SQL Server.  Netware is
running great as a file server (I wouldn't dream of loading
any database server NLMs on it) and NT is running great
as a database server (I wouldn't dream of creating
2500+ user accounts on a single NT machine).

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 01:48:59 -0700
From: Randy Grein <rgrein@halcyon.com>
To: "NetWare 4 list" <netw4-l@bgu.edu>
Subject: Re: Question on CNE test 50-147 and 50-162

>I am also noticing that Windows NT is gaining ground, and I am wondering
>if I can/should learn about it.  The available texts and sample test
>questions are not as readily available!

Win NT isn't gaining as much ground as the media makes it sound. I've
seen it ripped out quite a bit lately, and the unbiased reports I've seen
show MS with it's traditional 8-10% network market share. If you don't
have an immediate need for NT knowlege I wouldn't worry too much about
it, as most of the important parts need to be changed before it becomes a
viable NOS. Just a few examples:

MS JUST added RIP support to their TCP implementation. Up til now NT
relied on static route tables edited by hand. They still don't do
anything with modern router protocols. By the time this is added you
won't recognize the configuration, methods or anything else.

The domain structure is on the way out, but won't be replaced for another
year minimum (probably 3 years real time). Nothing has been said about
the structure or methodology of the directory service that will replace
it, but it is certain that it will bear no resemblance to the existing
Domain architecture.

MS plans major changes to the OS, objectifying it, and the interface by
making it a web browser. New capabilities, new limitations, new methods.
My read is that they've stated that they need to replace the naming and
security services, the OS, upgrade the core NOS, and replace the
interface. What, pray tell is left? The result is that if you learn NT
now and don't use it you won't recognize the product in 3-4 years.

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 10:49:39 +0100
From: Eric Hall <ehall@NWC.COM>
Subject: Re: NT vs NW

>We have been using Novell Netware for several years, now we are
>upgrading our server (25user) and it is suggested that we change to
>Windows NT.

For a brand-new 25-user LAN, NT makes a good choice. For an existing
NetWare 3.x site, NT makes for a lousy upgrade choice. For a complicated
environment with multiple servers, NetWare 4.x is your best bet.

NT is like NetWare 2 used to be: It was simple enough for any idiot to
use, so most of the idiots did (instead of using UNIX or the like). Now
NT fills the newbie market better than NetWare 4, which is too complex
to be useful in small shops. But the resource requirements of NT over
NetWare 3 (for the same level of return in perfomance) are far higher,
and the thing is not necessarily any easier to administer.

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

Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 10:41:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Estes <ESTES@admin.xu.edu>
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Re: NetWare vs Windows NT Server

For those interested in a more practical comparison of NetWare
and NT, you must see LAN Times May 13, 1996 issue.  As we all
know, NetWare is faster.  LAN Times did a test with Oracle 7.2 on
equal server boxes, one running NetWare 4.1 and the other running
NT.  NetWare was consistently 12% faster.  Also, CPU utilization
was around 40% for NetWare and 80 to 100% for NT!  Many other
comparisons are made as well.

Also, this week's Infoworld compares the betas of Green River and
NT 4.0. It is funny that this Beta 2 of NT 4.0 is LESS stable
than Beta 1!  The executive summary cons for NT 4.0 are
"stability woes and no real directory service."

Our friends at MicroSoft have conveniently renamed their infamous
domain service as NT Directory Services.  Wow!  Just like that,
MS marketing has transformed domain services into directory
services!

Anyway, Randy Grein is right (as usual) about the priority of
learning NT Server being low for just the reasons he stated.
When and if it becomes necessary, I will learn NT.

Finally, MS will dominate the desktop, although Java may minimize
their importance, and Novell should continue to dominate the NOS
arena.  Since MS wants to put Novell out of business using their
typical predatory capitalistic ways, I would like to see Novell
become more aggressive with them and knock them out of the NOS
market for the third straight time!

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 09:00:49 -0400
From: RTaylor163@aol.com
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Re: NetWare vs Windows NT (Not Today) (Not Tomorrow) Server

In a message dated 96-05-30 10:49:53 EDT, you write:

>MS wants to put Novell out of business using their typical predatory
>capitalistic ways, I would like to see Novell become more aggressive with
>them and knock them out of the NOS market for the third straight time!

I went to heads up NT vs NW4.1.

Well this was the first time I had seen NT in 4-5 years.  What realy gets
me is this is put out by microsoft.

-No drag & drop
-DOS Based Mail setup

And basicaly NT looks to be like a glorified peer to peer system.

Yes I to feel I'll learn NT when I have to

-Roger

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 07:57:31 -0700
From: Randy Grein <rgrein@halcyon.com>
To: "NetWare 4 list" <netw4-l@bgu.edu>
Subject: Re: NetWare vs Windows NT (Not Today) (Not Tomorrow) Server

>A thorough database comparison.  There's been a lot of hype about NT
>being tuned for DB performance.

Scott, a LOT of people have asked for this, I'll have to do it, now! The
amusing thing is that you're correct about the hype, but I will say that
Gupta and Oracle both have stated emphatically that on the same hardware
their databases are WAY faster on NetWare than anything else. Add to that
hardware vendors claims about NT scalability dropping rapidly after 2
processors and 8 being impractical, it would be interesting to actually
check it out.

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 07:57:34 -0700
From: Randy Grein <rgrein@halcyon.com>
To: "NetWare 4 list" <netw4-l@bgu.edu>
Subject: Re: NetWare vs Windows NT (Not Today) (Not Tomorrow) Server

>There was a claim in LAN Times that sometimes NT domain services is easier
>to manage for workgroup configurations than NDS.  Is this true or do they
>not understand how to configure NDS on a smaller scale?

You've got it right. I've done both, and NDS is definitely easier!
Rights, login scripts, user definitions, they're all easier with NetWare.
It's just that NT isn't THAT much harder if you have a 10 user workgroup.
If you have a 50-100 user workgroup, watch out!

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 23:47:11 -0700
From: Randy Grein <rgrein@halcyon.com>
To: "NetWare 4 list" <netw4-l@bgu.edu>
Subject: Re: Question on CNE test 50-147 and 50-162

>To basically ignore NT as Randy suggests will not help you in any way
>shape or form.
>
>I think this advice is as ludicrous as saying "Ignore Novell...NT will
>be the NOS of the future."  (I've actually heard people say that).  The
>want ads are plastered with people looking for both Novell AND NT
>experience.

I NEVER said to ignore NT. The original question was regarding someone
who has no present need or use for the knowlege; in that case they'd be
much better served studying protocols and WAN stuff. Far, far more jobs
available for protocol jockeys who happen to know Novell (or NT), and at
much higher pay. Now if you happen to be an SNA guru, you can pretty much
name your price - I've seen ads over the past couple of years offering at
over $120 k for that mix.

My points, which remains valid are these:

1. Microsoft has made three serious attempts on networking in the past 10
years; 4 if you count WFW/Win95. First came MS Net. When this failed they
moved the protocol to OS/2 and built Lan Manager. Lan Man failed to
capture much market, so they ripped out the guts again and put it onto
NT. Each incarnation has been hailed as "the NOS of the future"; yet MS
marketshare has stayed the same.

2. Long range plans for NT and Win95 have been announced long ago and the
course appears to be stable: Replace Domains with an as yet unspecified
Directory; rebuild the networking so it's more reliable; replace the disk
structure with an object oriented structure; then objectify the entire OS.

3. With the depth and scope of knowlege we need to maintain as networking
experts it is essential that we concentrate on those areas that will be
most productive, both short term and long term. In 5 years someone with
current knowlege in NT will find that knowlege useless except as
general/historical knowlege the same way Lan Man 1.0 is useless today.
The same effort applied in another direction such as advanced protocol
analysis and WAN design would still be useful. Please note that this does
NOT apply to those of us who must support the current product, or who see
a near term need. I am for example an MCP and nearly finished with my
MSCE, but I work for a consulting company where I need that knowlege to
support existing customers.

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

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 13:01:45 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Comparisons

>Having worked with both peer-to-peer and Netware LANS I feel that for a
>small company with little or no budget, a peer-to-peer N/W would work out
>a cheaper option. Products such as Lantastic cost only a few pounds (or
>dollars  #:-}  ) and is easily upgraded to accomadate extra users. You
>do not even need a dedicated server (if you are prepared to take a
>performance drop when traffic gets heavy). Security can be a problem if
>you are not careful since with peer-to-peer evrybody's machine (including
>local drives) can be seen by other users on the N/W.
>
>Although I have used products like Novell Lite and Lantastic, I still
>prefer the option of buying a small Novell licence (5 or 10 user) and
>getting the company to streach its budget slightly. Performance seems
>better especially under heavy printing loads and  other traffic.
----------
	Without meaning to extend the discussion, I can't help but
remark on how often the "cheap purchase/ease of initial installation"
plays the dominant role in selecting peer-to-peer networking software.
All that is what I term "initial contact" stuff, and is of much less
importance than "what can we do with it, and what will it do with us"
plus "what is the real cost to the organization of behaving this way."
	The last phrase is the most important item, and it includes
vulnerability of all shared data to any and all mishaps. Penny wise
and pound foolish is the outfit exposed this way.
	Joe D.

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

Date:	Fri, 31 May 1996 16:41:26 -0600
From:	NWNEWS@novell.com (NetWare News)
Subject: NetWareNews Week in Review May 22-29th

<snip>

2. Biggest change in Windows NT Server 4.0 is its version number
     "NOS vs. NOS"
       InfoWorld, May 27, 1996 (cover)

"I really liked NWAdmin's improved editing capabilities [in Green
River], which allowed me to do bulk updates on multiple users
or containers...  Unlike Green River, NT 4.0's administration is
apparently not slated for improvement until the much-hyped
Cairo appears sometime later this century...  NT 4.0 is
basically a cosmetic upgrade that adds Internet capabilities to
Version 3.51...  The two most notable changes other than the
interface are the addition of the distributed common object
model -- a technology that looks interesting but has little
practical impact today-and video drivers move to unprotected
kernel memory.

This move make sense in NT Workstation, but not in NT Server;
to preserve the common driver model, Microsoft has
compromised NT Server's stability for NT Workstations
performance.

"Windows NT will not be going much further without a real
directory service."

<snip>

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

Date:	Fri, 31 May 1996 17:18:53 -0600
From:	NWNEWS@novell.com (NetWare News)
Subject:NetWare / Windows NT Server

Topic:	NT is Four to Five Times Slower Than NetWare
	When Running Communications Week Benchmarks

Excerpted from Communications Week, April 29, 1996

More Proof That Windows NT Server Transfers Files Slower
Than NetWare

The real reason we were having trouble was Microsoft Windows
NT Server. We already uncovered that NT doesn't handle file
and print serving as well as Novell NetWare, and during the
course of our Pentium server lab tests, we quantified it with
CommWeek's benchmarks. It appeared that Windows NT
Server was four to five times slower running our benchmarks
than an equivalent server running Novell NetWare 4.1 SMP. . . .

Right now, though, I think it's safe to say that NT Server doesn't
compare favorably.

The most convincing event was almost an afterthought. After
finally getting a decent video feed (it required the DPT controller
that won last week's comparison) I wondered if I might be
asking the server for too much. Before I put everything away, I
set up a Novell NetWare server to feed the same video. Time
constraints forced me to use an old Gateway 2000 EISA
machine with a 486 CPU and 32 megabytes of RAM.

Although the NetWare server was much slower than the NT
machine, both in terms of processor and system bus, it did
share a similar SCSI controller, an older version of the DPT
SmartCache aimed at EISA. It passed the video test with flying
colors. We kept adding workstations until we ran out of
video-capable lab stations and continued to get good video with
minimal frame loss.

Now, we're not exactly comparing apples to apples here. The
machines weren't even in the same class, for example.
Likewise, the system buses were different, there were
differences in memory, and the Gateway didn't have any
AV-quality drives. So we can't consider this a definitive test,
although we are certainly getting some strong indications that
Windows NT isn't suited for the demands of high-performance
file transfers.

These and our earlier results make it obvious that further study
is necessary. Naturally, I'll tell you about it here. In the
meantime, if you need performance in handling large files, you
might want to wait a while before switching to Windows NT
Server. Our preliminary indications show that it's dramatically
slower than NetWare when performing those tasks.

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

Date:	Fri, 31 May 1996 17:12:41 -0600
From:	NWNEWS@novell.com (NetWare News)
Subject: NetWareNews: Reality Check--C2 Security

Topic:	When Looking at C2 Security for a Microsoft
	Windows NT Network, Look No Further Than Windows NT's
	Own Messages

Current C2 Status of Microsoft Windows NT Server
The National Computer Security Center (NCSC) is the single
authoritative voice on the subject of C2 certification. The Red
Book  C2 certification process (network environment) does not
actually begin until an Evaluation Agreement (EA) has been
signed by the vendor and the appropriate government
organization and sent to the NCSC. Novell's EA was sent to the
NCSC in August 1995 and NetWare is expected to be C2 Red
Book compliant for its next version Green River, which will be
released in the fall of 1996. As of May 9, 1996, no public letter of
agreement has been posted by the NCSC indicating that NT
certification for C2 Red Book (complete trusted network) has
started or is in process. 

Below is a screen shot of Microsoft Windows NT 3.51 with a C2
Configuration Manager message (C2 Configuration Manager
can be found on the Windows NT Resource Kit).
Microsoft's status is therefore the same today as it was in July of
1995 as per the NCSC announcement: "A network configuration
of the Windows NT platform is currently pending evaluation
agreement." 

Although some reports from Redmond may imply otherwise,
Windows NT has gained C2 certification as a standalone
workstation or server only. One only needs to observe Windows
NT's own messages to discover that Windows NT is not secure
for networking. 

"Of course, we fail to see the benefits of NT Server when it's not
connected to a network." LAN Times, May 13, 1996 p. 70

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 00:16:40 -0700
From: Randy Grein <rgrein@halcyon.com>
To: "NetWare 4 list" <netw4-l@bgu.edu>
Subject: Re: UDP Enabling Issues/Good NT Server Mail List?

>Yeah, keep the NT on the back-end, as an application and communication
>server, with Netware 4.1 on the front-end for NDS, file, and print
>services. You're administration budget and mobile users will appreciate
>it. It's best to use products for their strengths and stay away from
>their weaknesses.

Yeah, except that I've heard it's not so hot for a comm server, and it's
suitability as an app server is questionable, given the NT inefficiency
with hardware. Of course, if you MUST run the MS SQL server, then it's
the only game in town... .

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

Date:	Thu, 27 Jun 1996 16:32:06 -0600
From:	NetWare News <NWNEWS@novell.com>
To:	netwarenews@NetPub.COM
Subject: Week In Review

<snip>

2.  NDS more scalable, manageable than NT domains
	  "NT Server's Growing Pains"
	       Byte Magazine, July 1996 (page 137)

"Directory services and domains are two different ways to deal
with the problem of finding a needle in a large haystack.
NetWare 4's NetWare Directory Service (NDS) does it by
handing you the needle when you ask for it. NT Server uses
domains, which basically tell you to look in a smaller haystack.
Clearly, NT has much growing to do in this area. . . .

"Worse, the number of two-way trust relationships grows
geometrically. It's N times (N 1), where N is the number of
domains. Six domains require 30 trust relationships (see the
figure 'Tangled Domain Trusts' on page 138), 50 domains
require 2450 trust relationships, and 100 domains require
9900. That's a lot of relationships to set up and administer...

"If the PDC [primary domain controller] is down or unreachable,
administrators cannot update domain information until they
manually intervene to promote a BDC to become the PDC. This
makes the PDC a single point of failure. . . . Because NDS
replication doesn't depend on a single, primary database, it has
no single point of failure. . . .

"Here's another limitation to NT's domains: Moving an NT server
from one domain to another requires you to reinstall the OS. To
move a NetWare server to a different branch of the directory tree,
you merely indicate your change in Novell's NWAdmin
software--a point and click operation. Similarly, you move
resources (e.g., users and printers) in NT by deleting the entry
in one domain and adding the entry in the other domain.
NWAdmin makes such chores a drag-and-drop operation."

Sidebar figure: Tangled Domain Trusts
"With NDS, each site can access network resources at any
other site, which means a six-site network needs only six
connections. The NT domain model requires trust relationships
between each site for total access to resources. A six-site
network needs 30 connections."

<snip>

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 10:40:19 +0000
From: "Andrew Sear" <seara@btal.com.au>
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Re: Netware 4.x vs. Windows NT

>I am from a rural school and will be connecting the school to the internet.
>We will be handling our own e-mail accounts in the school.   We are
>currently using Netware 3.12 and will probably be upgrading to 4.x or
>Windows NT.  If anyone comments on either of the two I would appreciate
>your input.  It is a possibility that we may create a WAN between three
>buildings, each five miles apart.  Thanks for the info.

This question gets a bit religous, but I honestly believe that
Netware 4 is an easier to manage environment than Windows NT.  It
also comes down to how many servers, and what workstations you are
running.  NT's domain management is not that great, whereas NDS if
pretty good.  With a WAN in place I think you will find that NDS and
the ability to partition and replicate NDS is better than the NT
accounts system.  Login scripts are also worth looking at before
migrating away from netware, and I have heard but cannot confirm that
Netware is better for setting up large numbers of accounts which you
would probably experience in a student environment.  NT still has a
role to play in any large network, particularly if you are running
application servers ( Lotus Notes, Citrix, SQL Server).  We are also using
NT as our workstation O/S and that is probably worth considering if your
hardware can handle it.

Also work out your email platform in advance, with Netware you can
run Groupwise which is a fine product, but you might also be
surprised by how good Pegasus Mail is.  I use to run that in a
university environment and with an SMTP gateway (mercury or charon)
it worked wonderfully.  You will possibly still need a unix box to
talk to the internet, act as a POP server etc.. but I believe NT can
do some of that now.  The only thing I suggest on email is not to use
Microsoft Mail - the one that comes 'free' with WFWG.  I think it is
an apalling product, MS Exchange must be better but I have no
experience with it.

There is a windows nt list a windows-nt@mailbase.ac.uk where you can
probably get a 100% different opinion but they are entitled to that.

---------

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 20:24:04 -0500
From: RogerTaylor@usemail.com (Taylor, Roger W.)
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Re: Netware 4.x vs. Windows NT

>This question gets a bit religous...<snip>

I don't have much NT experience but I have to say I agree with Andrew.
Especially if you are planning a WAN. Netware 4.1 was made for WANs.
NTs Domains can't even begin to compare to NDS as far as security or
ease of administration.  But this dose not mean NT has nothing to
offer.  I'm finding more and more LANs run both OSs.  I don't know
exactly what NT 4 has to offer but I am not impressed with 3.51.
Remember Novell researched Domain technology and dumped it.

Besides if your comfortable with Netware 3.12 (your current NOS) then
stepping up to NW4.1 will be easier and more economical from a training
and administrative point of view.

---------

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 21:01:58 -0600
From: "Mike Avery" <mavery@pernet.net>
To: DDSPECKEEN@aol.com, netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Re: Netware 4.x vs. Windows NT

What's better?  NetWare 4.10 or Microsoft NT?  Gee, what's better, a
hammer or a saw?  A sports car or a dump truck?  It kinda depends on
what you're going to do.  If you need to pound and pull nails, a
hammer fits the bill.  If you want to cut wood, a saw.  If you want
to drive fast and impress susceptible members of the opposite sex, a
sports car is just the ticket.  If you wanna move 20 tons of dirt, a
dump truck is more along the lines of what you want to do.

My own impressions are that NDS provides much better enterprise
control than anything that Microsoft offers.  As far as print and
file services go, once again, Novell is much faster.  As far as
routing and data transfer go, NetWare is much better again.

Overall, as an application server, NT wins.  NetWare was not really
designed to act as a shared processing resource.

What about mail services?  There are a number of very good email
products that run as NLM's under NetWare.  For school systems on a
budget, it's worth noting that one of the best mailers and email
systems is free.  Mercury is a fine mail server, and Pegasus mail is
a very nice email package.  Both are free, unless you want to further
David Harris' work by buying manuals from him.  He will be the first
to tell you that you are under no obligation to purchase manuals from
him.  (Site licences for Pegasus are $500.00, and the manual for
Mercury is $125.00, as near as I recall.)

As to other services, using free or low cost winsock based software
combined with Novell's bundled WINSOCK driver is a very low cost way
of getting lots of nodes on the net.

As to the WAN between buildings, there are low cost ways to get a
wireless 2 mbps connection between them, if you have a clear line of
sight.  It will run about 3 miles quite well, and 5 miles if the wind
is right.  NCR's WaveLAN combined with external antennas can do a
very nice job for you.  If you want more information, please let me
know.

---------

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 00:26:26 -0400
From: PowrTekSys@aol.com (Kevin C. McIntosh)
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Re: Netware 4.x vs. Windows NT

There is no comparison for the front-end.  Go with NW 4.1 or, this fall,
the new version code-named Green River.

I believe in using a product for its strengths and staying as far away
from its weaknesses as possible.  NTASs strength is as an application and
communication server.  Their DNS can't touch Novell's NDS.  Of course, with
Netware SMP, the gap as an application server, for both NTAS and UNIX, is
closing.

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 08:37:31 -0700
From: Randy Grein <rgrein@halcyon.com>
To: "NetWare 4 list" <netw4-l@bgu.edu>
Subject: Re: Netware 4.x vs. Windows NT

In few words, NT sucks on a WAN. MS FINALLY got it (version 3.51 with
Service Pack 4) to understand the most rudementary routing protocol, RIP.
Setting up for workstation access across routers is a study in the
stupidity of designers that never considered that people might want to do
that.

You're not likely to hit NT's performance limitations if you keep to fast
hardware and at least 64 megs of RAM, but plan on one server per 50
users. You CAN push it farther, but it gets expensive fast.

In terms of manageability, you can forget about your login scripts. Under
NT they're Batch files, and for dos/windows/win95 there's no variable
logic, as in:

IF %LOGIN_NAME="FRED" WRITE "YOU'RE FIRED!"

There's a bit for NT Workstation, but it's a pretty spare environment. Of
course this means individual login scripts for EVERY user if you want to
do something as basic as map a personal directory.

Finally there's rights - a user can have up to 4 different access
prividges, depending on what machine they're using - DOS/Windows, NT
Server, Domain controller, or local access.

Other than these points, there's no real difference between the two
systems, except that Microsoft is junking Domains as soon as they figure
out what to replace it with, and I quote twice as long to set up an NT
server as Netware, 3 times to do administration, and 4 times for
troubleshooting.

---------

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:01:02 -0400
From: PowrTekSys@aol.com (Kevin C. McIntosh)
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Re: Netware 4.x vs. Windows NT

There's a difference between a Systems Integrator and a Systems
Disintegrator.  I believe Randy falls into the former category and he's
right.  If you strive to maintain a Win-Win situation with your clients,
you'll succeed.

My company walks away from LAN installs of Lantastic and WAN Front-end
installs of NTAS.  Yeah, we could make a lot of money installing and
supporting these products, but clients get frustrated and blame/dump you
way before you see any real profits.

We are migrating 3 WANs, based in the Houston, TX area, that tried NTAS
and are dumping it and a lot of their MIS staff for NW 4.1.  I sit back
and, then go in and eliminate their problems with NW 4.1.  Netware 4.1
makes you look like a deity after a company has rode NTAS for a while.
NTAS is not much more than LANmanager with a GUI interface.

Opinion is formed from 10 years as a Senior SE, Project Manager, and
Systems Integration company owner.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 00:01:56 -0700
From: Randy Grein <rgrein@halcyon.com>
To: "NetWare 4 list" <netw4-l@bgu.edu>
Subject: Re: Netware and NT workstations

>Has anyone got any thoughts on integrating NT workstations into an
>NDS.  Our environment is currently 40 3.12 servers, 500 NT
>workstations running on a NT PDC and BDC using DSMN to synchronize
>passwords with the 3.12 boxes.  The PDC has the benefit of running
>all the NT login scripts (had to replace the 3.12 ones, NT login
>scripts are terrible) and provides the same 'desktop' to users if/when
>they change workstations.  Also 6 or more NT application servers - mostly
>Notes, but SQL Base might get a presence.

Exactly what type of integration are you trying to do? If it's just the
client side, then help is on the way - the NT client for Netware is
supposed to be out with the release of Green River. I'm supposed to get
my copy tomorrow, so I'll know in a week or so. This will give you NAL,
NDS, etc.

You SHOULD be able to provide the same functionality for individual user
interfaces on ANY NOS for NT workstation, although not having done it
personally I couldn't tell you the exact steps. You're right, NT login
scripts stink, but at least running NT workstation you have access to a
few script variables, so you're not forced into individual batch files
for every user.

Now if you're trying to get the workstations AND servers integrated into
NDS, I believe that is a bit farther off, but not too far. Don't forget
that there's no integrated management between the NT domains and notes,
exchange, ms mail or even sql server. Microsoft doesn't even have a plan
for this integration yet, while Novell is promising federated partitions
and the consequent foreign directory integration starting in a year.

Also, those 40 NT servers should consolodate into (depending on your
distribution) about 10 NW 4.1 servers, maybe less, while you may have to
increase the number of servers for NT. Figure about a 4:1 ratio of
required servers between the two NOS'. Finally, if you have a widespread
WAN, NT is definitely less attractive.

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

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 15:08:17 EDT
From: John Taft <John_Taft@PARWHQ2.CCMAIL.COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: Re: Netware and NT workstations

>Has anyone got any thoughts on integrating NT workstations into an
>NDS.  Our environment is currently 40 3.12 servers, 500 NT
>workstations running on a NT PDC and BDC using DSMN to synchronize
>passwords with the 3.12 boxes.  The PDC has the benefit of running
>all the NT login scripts (had to replace the 3.12 ones, NT login
>scripts are terrible) and provides the same 'desktop' to users
>if/when they change workstations.  Also 6 or more NT application
>servers - mostly Notes, but SQL Base might get a presence.

The NetWare client for NT does support NDS in addition to bindery. The
thing you have to be careful about is when attaching to a resource you
locate and connect to it via NDS naming rather than bindery. The
biggest problem with NT and networking is Microsoft insists on seeing
the world as a peer-to-peer relationship, not as we are used to with
NetWare in a client/server with central configuration and control. The
biggest problem with the Netware NT client is no support for NetWare
login scripts, so we are forced to the M$ peer-to-peer model.


>We are about to kick off a project to determine our upgrade path to
>either Netware 4.1 or NT.  My understanding is that NT workstations
>do not currently integrate well (if at all) with NDS and that this
>might force us to look seriously at NT.  The goal is to have all our
>workstations on NT over the next year or so (approx. 1800).

You need to keep the requirements for workstation and server file and
print separate. Don't follow the M$ marketing push that everything
needs to be NT. Evaluate the requirements based on the technical
merits of each environment's offerings. Remember, it is immaterial to
a workstation what platform your file/print server is running on if
all you see it as is a drive letter or print spool.


>Now I believe that the NDS is a better environment for than NT but is
>this really true if we are going to be all NT workstations.  Without
>Novell integrating NT into the NDS in the very near future NDS is a
>bit limiting.  The Novell Application Launcher is also of interest as
>the last time I saw it was Brainshare '95.


The answer to this question will have to do greatly with how you want
to organize your network resources and security. If the idea of a
directory service is what you want, Novell has that today, you will
have to wait until sometime in 1997 for M$ to get theirs to market. By
then, Novell's will be 3+ years old and still reliable. M$'s will be a
brand-new product. What is important to you?


>I see that this is going to be an issue for anyone who deploys NT
>workstations on a large scale, and has the potential to shift the NOS
>platform away from Novell until NT is incorporated into the NDS.

Anything M$ markets has the potential to kill a better product offered
by any vendor. Look at the casualties, IBM, NetScape, WordPerfect,
Lotus, and the list goes on... Unfortunately, too many technology and
buying decisions are made based on the M$ hype and glitz rather than
reality.

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

Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 20:22:07 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Am I missing something here?

>At my place of employment it was just announced that we are going to convert
>entirely to Windows NT, server and client.

	If it's a done deal then that's it we presume. On the other hand,
if you have a voice in a still depending decision then you might wish to
examine some glossy adverts from both MS and Novell on the matter. From
the Red Box folks have a look at Managwise (network-wide management, based
on Intel's LanDesk Manager core), and for visual entertainment ask your
reseller for the Novell video "Dare to Compare, NetWare 4 vs Microsoft NT
server." Carry along a bag of salt, but also take notes. Then do some
head scratching on scalability issues which will loom more than large in
a 150 server environment. I'd visit the web sites of both vendors and
collect their sundry white papers. Call your resellers and get the vendor
reps to go over your request for quotation (or whatever).
	After collecting and sifting this material I'd hope that the
folks responsible would at least list objectives and the relative merits
of available solutions to engineer the matter rather than react emotionally.
In addition, the near future counts for much, and it's common knowledge
that MS is giving much thought to their present Lan Manager-based networking
strategy.

>We are a rather large health care provider with clients numbering in the
>thousands connected to over 150 Novell servers.  I would say that almost 95%
>is for file and print services.
>
>One of the selling points from what I understand is that along with this, they
>will use SMS to manage the desktops from a single location.
>
>Now, my only exposure to NT server was a week long class I attended. I am
>probably being biased but it just seemed very cumbersome to set up and
>maintain, at least for file and print sharing.  Trusts, Trusting, domaines,
>etc.
	You are on the right track. Don't forget to add network traffic
to keep the system going, and the qty of servers to make the system robust.
For NT both are big numbers, alas.
	Joe D.

>Something seems very wrong with this picture but I am not in any position to
>make a judgement since I have little practical experience with NT.  I know
>this is a Novell forum but I have seen hundreds of postings here on the
>various trials and tribulations suffered with NT/Novell integration.  I have
>also read in the various trades that many companies are rethinking their
>commitment to an NT infrastructure.
>
>Have I been so deeply intrenched in the day to day administration of my three
>server, 400 node LAN that the boat has passed me by?
>I would appreciate any and all feedback.  Right now I am in a state of shock
>and feel like one of those legacy cobol programmers who still feel that PC's
>are just toys.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 11:43:19 -0700
From: "Richard K. Acquistapace" <acquista@NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Am I missing something here?

>At my place of employment it was just announced that we are going to
>convert entirely to Windows NT, server and client.
>
>We are a rather large health care provider with clients numbering in the
>thousands connected to over 150 Novell servers.  I would say that almost
>95% is for file and print services.

I'll quote LAN Times, Vol. 13, issue 18.  "NT Server 4.0 is at its best
as a workgroup or departmental server, with Windows 95 clients as
peers".  You have a large network operating system.  If you have any say
-- you won't even go that way.  Ask Chevron as they are removing NT at
this moment.

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 06:11:24 -0700
From: Randy Grein <rgrein@halcyon.com>
To: "NetWare 4 list" <netw4-l@bgu.edu>
Subject: Re: UGH!  Win95 Client attaches to all servers in tree!

>I have a lab setting with 5 netware 4.1 servers.  My problem is that when
>a user logs in they attach to all 5 servers and use up a license on each
>one.  These are not just DS connections. This is bad, considering that I
>don't have enough licenses for all the machines to attach to all the
>servers!

This is indeed the "correct" behavior for the Microsoft client. When
exploring the network it makes a connection to each server, rather than
simply relying on the default server to tell it about the others. Typical
microsoft networking; they still don't understand clients and servers.
The ONLY fix I've heard of so far is to use the Netware client. Besides,
you get a good implementation of SPX, important if you use IPX/SPX to
connect to a SQL server.

---------

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 22:33:43 -0700
From: Randy Grein <rgrein@halcyon.com>
To: "NetWare 4 list" <netw4-l@bgu.edu>
Subject: Re: UGH!  Win95 Client attaches to all servers in tree!

>I dunno Randy.... the experience of the first person doesn't match
>mine.  Back in a previous life, we were using Win 95 with the
>Microsoft drivers.  While they had rough edges, they never connected
>a user to all the servers - we would also have run out of user
>licenses and did not.  Of course, we also made sure that people only
>had login ID's where we wanted them to login, which reduced any
>possible problem in that area.  But, '95 neither connected to, nor
>logged into, all the available servers.

Maybe I wasn't clear. When you browse the network explorer makes a
connection to each server it finds. This is not a big deal (supposedly)
for Microsoft networks because MS servers (WFW, Lan Man & NT) clear
connections that aren't being used. Of course, each workstation making
its own server table greatly increases network traffic. These connections
are never cleared by NetWare servers, because the workstations respond to
wotchdog packets. Keep in mind that these are not logged in connections,
as such the users may not be defined on the server, but they have used up
a connection slot.

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


Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 01:02:24 -0700
From: Danny Weiss <dweiss@IBM.NET>
Subject: Re: Netware 4.1 or Windows NT

> ...planning to install Netware 4.1. But now, we're really worried about
>what product is better for us: Netware 4.1 or Windows NT 3.51 (or 4.0):

I've just been through the same problem, and here's what we decided:
First, given that you're dealing with a significant number of different
servers, Netware 4.1x is the clear choice for the overall network OS.
You already know that the multiple server management features of NW far
outpace NT.  Don't bother comparing NW with NT 3.5x, you've got to look
at NT 4, since there are significant differences.  Though, not enough to
warrant a conclusion that NT is better for your environment than NW.

> First, it's really easier to find web and mail servers and others free
> softwares for NT for educational and research organizations. On the other
> hand, free Netware software is really difficult to find. Did someone have
> this problem ? Is there cool free (like web and mail servers) software for
> Netware ? Where ?

Free NW software, you're kidding, right? :)
I have heard of some internet shareware or NW machines but, you're
generally right, there are more NT apps out there, at the moment.  I'm
resolving this problem 2 ways: First, NW 4.11 with the Intranetware
product appears as if it will address a fair number of the internet
services concerns you have -- and keep the solution in a single NW OS
package with full NDS support.  Our second solution, of course, is to
run an NT server or workstation, fully integrated into our NW 4.x LAN,
where it is clearly the best tool to use for applications support --
such as, perhaps, a web server or a platform for a more comprehensive
internet access package (including SMTP and POP3 mail, NNTP news, etc.
There may, in fact, be some security advantages to the second approach,
since it allows you to run internet services on an NT machine, access
those services via your NW network, but use the NW/NT interface as an
opportunity to provide additional security between your main LAN and the
internet.  Unfortunately, Novell appears to remain behind MS in terms of
some server features for applications support.  Until NW catches up w/NT
in this regard, there isn't any reason you can't run an NT server as an
application server, where needed, and connect to it via your NW LAN.

> I've been working with Netware for 6 years and I know NT is newer and it
> doesn't have an NDS. I mean, it's easier to manage a network with NDS, but
> NT power is growing each day.

NT power MAY be growing, but it is still far different from NT, and each
has its own strengths and weakness.  On balance, NW remains the network
OS of choice, particularly for multi-server environments.  I don't think
that is going to change anytime soon.  Given that, I've adopted the mix
and match policy outline above.  If I need NT to run an application or,
for that matter, if I need UNIX to run something, I will install the
appropriate additional machine on my NW LAN and provide users access to
it through NW.  I'm using this strategy for a LAN to support hundreds of
users in an environment that includes over 35 locations throughout the
city.  A final point of interest -- we're sticking with the NW network
OS despite the fact that we've decided to go with NT on all of our
workstations.

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

Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 11:46:35 -0500
From: Net manager Console <manager@ELK-GROVE.K12.IL.US>
Subject: Re: Netware 4.1 or Windows NT

>First, it's really easier to find web and mail servers and others free
>softwares for NT for educational and research organizations. On the other
>hand, free Netware software is really difficult to find. Did someone have
>this problem ? Is there cool free (like web and mail servers) software for
>Netware ? Where ?

To run a web/mail server on NT is a MAJOR headache (I did it for two
months), it is easier/simpler/less complicated/fun to do it on UNIX.  NT
requires MAJOR processing power to do multi-tasking enviorments such as
Web and Mail.  Even Novell does require additional memory for multi-uses.

Besides, since the internet started on UNIX machines, almost all of the
software is designed for it.  Sendmail is the current standard, and it
comes in all UNIX flavors.

To do internet mail on Novell, you need TCP/IP, which is built in to a
UNIX machine.

I use Novell for my file/data servers, UNIX for communications, an NT has
a job guarentee.

>I've been working with Netware for 6 years and I know NT is newer and it
>doesn't have an NDS. I mean, it's easier to manage a network with NDS, but
>NT power is growing each day.  Please, send any sugestions directly to
>myself.

I've been doing the software end of systems for 3 years (as an
administrator, about 17 as a user).  From what I've seen of NT lately, it
is mostly the famous Microsoft Hype.

To run an NT server as a Web-Mail-File-Data server, you need:

1.  dual pentium processors (100MHz or better)
2.  min.  68 Megs FREE RAM
3.  two machines
4.  4 Gigs storage

We found this out the hard way.  We started with one Pentium/133MHz
machine with 34 Megs RAM, and as we started to add services I could watch
the speed of the machine drop down to a 386/30.

One weekend, I moved all the WWW/Mail services back to the old 486/60
UNIX box, and waited for the speed complaints to come in.  Nobody
noticed.  3 weeks, nobody noticed.  Matter of fact, the speed of the
WWW/Mail system jumped back up dramaticaly.  One of the bosses here asked
me how I did it, and I told him I just had to tweak it.  I now use the NT
server as a backup machine and writing desk.

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 08:09:20 -0400
From: Lawrence Sobilo <LSOBILO@WHITINGCORP.COM>
Subject: A bit more on NT vs NetWare -Reply

The CISC vs. RISC scenario you [Dan Schwartz] present misses
one point: RISC systems have very little market share.
Ramifications: many industry pundants think NT as
a hardware independant platform is dead. NT runs
on Intel, Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC. I beleive Intel
sales ar 90+%, Alpha about 5%, others 1-2%. Thye
X86 architecture has been running out of gas for
years now. But, Intel (and Cyrix and others) seem
to find new ways to turbocharge the system. May
not have the whallop of a high end Alpha, but
they're cheap, prevalent, well supported, and
compatible with the most software.

We have some MIPS based NT systems. Shortly after
purchase, the vendor dropped the line, citing
inadequate market penetration. We can only run one
app on the systems. Users can't run any of the
common office software.

We were looking more NT systems. The department
manager won't even discuss Alpha systems.

So, I consider Netware limited to X86 architecture
to be completely inconsequential. I can get a
moderately priced network that exceeds my present
needs, and can grow as my needs grow.

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 08:54:45 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Air Force dumps NetWare for NT

	<omitting just about everyting>
>Maybe I should not say this but changes of this magnitude should be done
>slowly. One step at a time so to speak.
>Most probarly that is what will happen.
>If not they will learn the hard way and you'll be sure of a job.
-----------
	You don't understand. What a three star and a bunch of workers in
an office in the bottom of the Pentagon dictate does not cut much mustard
with troops out of that chain of command (nearly everyone) and who have
another line of bugetary authority (ditto). The office coffee pot and copy
machine may have to pretend to be NT servers, and contractors will have to
pay lip service, but that's nearly it.
	Having seen a few of the memos on the matter (thanks guys) there
wasn't any obvious testing etc, but rather a preordained commandment. So
what. Let them run NT for a while. The experience might do them some good.
But don't interpret this as technically motivated and validated decision
making, nor as a sudden change to the organization as a whole or even a
tiny portion thereof.
	As I said before, it's a tempest in a tea pot.
	Joe D.

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

