
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NW-vs2NT.DOC -- 19971025 -- 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, 31 Oct 1996 17:24:12 -0800
From: "Richard K. Acquistapace" <acquista@NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Networld+Interop

			Results of the Fight
		    The judges decisions are in.

Immediately following the keynote speech on the opening day of
Networld+Interop Novell Directory Services devastated Microsoft NT
Directory Service by knocking them out in a technical bout.

No Microsoft representatives responded to our challenge so we were forced
to ask for volunteers from the standing room only audience that had
gathered to witness the showdown. After finding a team of certified
network professionals, including a Certified Microsoft Engineer,
the bell rang and the fight was on.

As the fight began, round one required both competitors to move 10 users
from one location to another. Novell convincingly won this round the
demonstration showed Novell Directory Services ease of use with
drag-and-drop administration. On the other hand, Microsoft
NT Directory Service had to recreate each of the users in their new
location and reissue their rights to the network and its resources.

During round two network administrators were required to grant the
president of the company immediate rights to a new color printer.
However, the administrator was working in the server room--not near a
workstation. Microsoft was the judges choice for winner of this round
as they were able to give the president rights directly from the server
while Novell had to walk to a workstation in order to grant the rights.

Round three had the competitors creating a intranet directory from the
existing data found in the current directory service.  Novell Directory
Services clearly beat Microsoft in this round by pulling directly from
their data stores to quickly create an intranet directory including
everything from user information to photographs and more. Microsoft was
able to finish the task but only by manually entering the information
that was found in their directory.

In round four Novell again beat Microsoft as each was asked to grant
rights to two administrators one in engineering and the other in sales.
Each administrator had to have exclusive rights to their groups.
Novell easily granted the rights and made the rights exclusive while
Microsoft was unable to complete the operation without adding a piece
of hardware and then setting up a separate domain. Novell was the clear
choice for the judges in this round.

The task of round five was to distribute an application to all the users
in the company and then to give only the president a specific application.
It was expected that Microsoft would do well with this task as they have
been heavily touted as an application server. However, as the round played
out it was clear that Novell Directory Services and the Network Application
Launcher were going to take it to Microsoft NT Directory Service. In fact
the Novell team had already completed the task and tested the applications
to see that they had been distributed before Microsoft could really get
going. Microsoft NT Directory Service had been KO-ed by Novell Directory
Services. Of course, we knew it probably wouldn't be a very even match up.
When you're not a true directory service as is the case with Microsoft NT
(so called) Directory Service it's hard to compete with a world champion.

So thanks to everyone that came to see the "Fight of the Century." It was
both fun and enlightening. It's clear that Novell Directory Services
doesn't have much to worry about from Microsoft NT Directory Service.



For more information http:/novell.com/education.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 10:01:33 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Air Force dumps NetWare for NT

>There has been an Air Force wide directive to switch to Microsoft
>NT Server as the NOS of choice and MS Exchange as its
>email/messaging package of choice.  In my opinion, not a wise
>choice.
--------
	Once again folks go off the deep end with interpretations. The
entire USAF is hardly one organization, it does not change computer
systems as a unit. You wouldn't believe the variety they use, from very
ancient to the newest neatest toys. There are still Zenith 100's around
(one of their previous "directives" on PCs, and a Z100 is only partly
IBM PC compatible).
	What the announcement says is they hope to use more NT. Fine, let
them obtain live experience, and then value judgments can be made on the
results rather than on the wish. Do we see the distinction here?
	Joe D.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 11:17:00 -0500
From: Timm Benkula <timm.benkula@GALVNEWS.COM>
Subject: Re: Netware 4.1 or Windows NT

>NT/Server has one big advantage over NetWare: It runs on more than
>one platform. It runs in native mode under the DEC Alpha (AXP), MIPS, and
>Apple/IBM/Motorola PowerPC platforms; as well as on the i386 pee cee
>compatible. With the RISC processors you have much more CPU horsepower
>available for such goodies like disk compression.
>
>The major downsides to NT/Server are that it uses about twice as much
>CPU horsepower as a NetWare server for a given environment (connected
>users, etc.); NetWare is not as "fussy" as NT with the hardware you can
>run it on; and that NT's security is nowhere as good as NetWare's.

These reasons here are exactly why I prefer NetWare over NT. It's like
the anti-drug commercial: "I do cocaine so I can work longer to make more
money to buy more cocaine so I can work longer..."

I have NetWare 4.1 and NT 3.51 both running on identical hardware(except
NetWare has a slower hard drive) and NetWare blows NT away. Files
transfer to and from NetWare in half the time that it takes NT.

Why should I spend twice as much money to get equal performance?

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 11:23:23 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Air Force dumps NetWare for NT

>>	Once again folks go off the deep end with interpretations. The
>>entire USAF is hardly one organization, it does not change computer
>>systems as a unit. You wouldn't believe the variety they use, from very
>>ancient to the newest neatest toys. There are still Zenith 100's around
>>(one of their previous "directives" on PCs, and a Z100 is only partly
>>IBM PC compatible).
>>	What the announcement says is they hope to use more NT. Fine, let
>>them obtain live experience, and then value judgments can be made on the
>>results rather than on the wish. Do we see the distinction here?
>>	Joe D.
>
> The problem is, that people higher up in the command chain will
>"misinterpret" this, and try forcing NT down the
>throat of those of us who are currently perfectly happy (and
>productive, I might add) with Netware it would be good for us to
>have something to justify not going through the "live experience"
>if we don't have to.
>
>Darryl Wright
>Dfw, Kelly AFB
---------
	So go get that information. Novell, amongst others, has lots of
literature comparing NW with NT. Contact www.novell.com AND your NW
reseller. There is even a video entitled "Dare to Compare" from Novell.
	It's not our (list) problem that higher highers dictate certain
courses of action. On the other hand Col's acting as program managers
can be extremely difficult about changing anything which affects success
of the program. The track record of DoD on such matters is a sequence of
hillarious (to outsiders) blunders of power politics. ISO pgms anyone?
	In short, for the most part this is a tempest in a tea cup.
	Joe D.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 13:49:08 -0400
From: Larry Hansford <hansford@ERINET.COM>
Subject: Re: Air Force dumps NetWare for NT

>There has been an Air Force wide directive to switch to Microsoft
>NT Server as the NOS of choice and MS Exchange as its
>email/messaging package of choice.  In my opinion, not a wise
>choice.
>
>Somewhere, sometime on this list I seem to remember someone
>mentioning a major corporation, maybe Chevron - I'm not sure,
>ditching Novell and going to NT and then realizing the blunder
>they'd made and switching back.  Can anyone confirm this and/or
>have first-hand knowledge of other such occurrences?  If so, I'd
>like to compile the info and send it up the chain ASAP in the hopes
>of stopping a nightmare in the making for us AF net admin types.

I wouldn't get too concerned about this directive -- you'll probably be
retired before it bears any weight on AF programs.  I retired from the AF
after 22 years, and none of the directives for new ISO compliant computers
and/or software were ever implemented.  They still by large IBM mainframes
that are not ISO compliant; they still program in COBOL, even though they
dictated that by 1990 all new programs would have to be written in ADA;
they still put in large, expensive dial-in networks when there is an
Internet feed in the next building; they still put out multi-year contracts
for PC's, which lock them into prices of the day instead of buying them
locally at the lowest market price available; etc., etc., etc.

Several years before I retired, I put in a network with an AT&T 3B2 Unix
box, a Netware 3.12 server, and 3 IBM 4178 mainframes with Ethernet ports
on the 7171 controllers so they could have local network access to the
workstations, worldwide access through the Internet, and mainframe access
through their dedicated IBM terminals or PC's with IRMA boards.  That
network is still in use today, and they are not about to replace any of it
as long as it works.

To answer your question, though, I would contact Novell's PR department.
They publish a weekly list of "slam Windows NT" articles, and I'm sure they
could overload you with the information you seek.  I recently went to a
Dare to Compare half-day seminar on that subject, and they had a wealth of
information in the overhead slides that they used for the briefing.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 15:23:47 -0700
From: "Richard K. Acquistapace" <acquista@NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Air Force dumps NetWare for NT

>>There has been an Air Force wide directive to switch to Microsoft
>>NT Server as the NOS of choice and MS Exchange as its
>>email/messaging package of choice.  In my opinion, not a wise
>>choice.
>--------
>	Once again folks go off the deep end with interpretations. The
>entire USAF is hardly one organization, it does not change computer
>systems as a unit. You wouldn't believe the variety they use, from very
>ancient to the newest neatest toys. There are still Zenith 100's around
>(one of their previous "directives" on PCs, and a Z100 is only partly
>IBM PC compatible).
>	What the announcement says is they hope to use more NT. Fine, let
>them obtain live experience, and then value judgments can be made on the
>results rather than on the wish. Do we see the distinction here?
>	Joe D.

Joe,

Again, you have hit the nail on the head!  I worked at the Oakland Army
Base, MTMC (Military Traffic Management Command).  I was in Long Range
Plans/Operations.  All of the servers are NetWare.  The email package is
Higgins.  It was the standard for the Forces, throughout the world.  There
was no plan to move to NT or Exchange.  I would know, as I was a member of
the team that tested various solutions.  As far as the equipment, the
Zeniths are still there!  And I believe that they are still using
Multimate.

Army, Navy, and Air Force utilized the same services.  I don't know what
the previous message is talking about.  Unless Billy Gates is messaging
Billy Clinton,  there are things I don't know about.  But, I can and will
find out.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 18:25:44 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: A bit more on NT vs NetWare

>Good points; except that there are two major flaws:
>
>1) Twice the performance is not twice the money... It's typically about
>1 1/3 times the cost when comparing RISC machines vs CISC machines;
>
>2) What happens when your CISC machine can't keep up? Add another?
>And another? With RISC technology it's just beginning to really take off...
>And the performance is incredible. [I see it all day long with Indigo,
>PowerMac, and SPARC workstations in the graphics biz, flipping around 200
>MB photo files like  bottle caps.]

	Good for you. Have you also thought about the network traffic
component of the mixture? Ethernet, 10Mbps variety, can carry only 800KB/sec
max under the best of conditions. 600KB/sec in server/client mode is doing
well. 200,000KB photo / 600KB/sec = 333.3 sec or 5 1/2 minutes. Not exactly
flipping things around I'd say. And this is only for read requests which
are large, many KB, not the 512 Byte variety so often seen in applications.
	Now given this transfer rate I wonder what the server cpu loading
might be like. Around my place it runs about 20% on a 486-33 EISA bus
machine. Yup, not exactly in the "heavy duty workstation" league these days.
	Hmmm, we say together. It's not the cpu so much as the bus and the
peripherals, goes the background chorus. But even then the wire fills nicely
while the cpu looks around for other wires to fill.
	This leads me to ask a silly question: are you certain that server
cpu horsepower is the primary performance control in your analyses, enough
to get up on that risc/cisc swayback hobby horse? If so we'd like to learn
more. If not then perhaps one of the NEWS advocacy groups would be
appropriate.
	Joe D.

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

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 14:11:00 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: NOVELL Digest - 18 Oct 1996

>>>[I see it all day long with Indigo, PowerMac, and SPARC workstations in
>>>the graphics biz, flipping around 200 MB photo files like  bottle caps.]
>>>	Dan
>>
>>	Good for you. Have you also thought about the network traffic
>>component of the mixture? Ethernet, 10Mbps variety, can carry only 800KB/sec
>>max under the best of conditions. 600KB/sec in server/client mode is doing
>>well. 200,000KB photo / 600KB/sec = 333.3 sec or 5 1/2 minutes. Not exactly
>>flipping things around I'd say. And this is only for read requests which
>>are large, many KB, not the 512 Byte variety so often seen in applications.
>
>	When I mentioned about 200 MB photo files being "flipped about," it
>wasn't the best choice of words for a network LISTSERV... Although
>appropriate nonetheless the way Photoshop handles data. A better choice of
>words would have been "200 MB photo files being ground up and spit back
>out.
>
>	[snip]
>
>>	This leads me to ask a silly question: are you certain that server
>>cpu horsepower is the primary performance control in your analyses, enough
>>to get up on that risc/cisc swayback hobby horse? If so we'd like to learn
>>more.
>
>	Hmmm... I've found that there are two groups of people when it
>comes to RISC machines: Those who have them and know the ins & outs; and
>those who don't use them on a daily basis. When one DOES use them (as I
>do), then s/he'll see what it's strengths and weakness' are.
	<omissions>
>	Dan Schwartz
>	Electrical Engineer.
----------
Dan,
	We are on different wavelengths. The people here could care less
amount nuances on silicon. They care a great deal about what can be provide
to users, NOW, at affordable prices with affordable support costs.
	Novell has been accused of going off in many different directions
which did not lead to enhancements in their mainline products. Guilty as
charged, and they realized this recently. Chasing after niche market high
end workstations as file servers would be to go even farther afield seeking
technical nirvana at the cost financial ruin. Since then Novell has been
pouring resources into those mainline products, and the results are now
emerging.
	They have consequently done some hard technical thinking about
platforms and weddings to same. If you look carefully as an engineer you
will see very large banners saying we are moving to platform independence
as fast as we can push keys. Need an example here? Client32 will do for
openers. The idea is avoid being locked into one frame of reference and
then reinventing the wheel to move on.
	The managers on the list, which is the vast majority of us, have
real problems to solve TODAY, with insufficent funds, insufficient support
personnel, too many users, too many salespersons, too much incredibly sloppy
programming by major vendors. The task is to make all this work in balance,
somehow, and still get sleep now and then. Both feet are necessarily firmly
on the ground.
	ATM is still deciding what it wants to be, and it is well over the
horizon of daily use in our environments. Some use on backbones is occuring,
at selected sites, but by no means is it required now. The expense is also
horrid when the full analysis is done. Please don't quote cheap board prices
without doing your engineering homework; such things are not cheap in dollars
or pounds and are currently extremely expensive in machine resources to
coverup the technical aspects.
	DEC Alphas are very nice machines. We have a bunch here. They are
expensive to acquire and expensive to hold on to. The facts of life say
such nice machines are rarely needed to perform our file serving tasks at
this time.
	Finally, you seemed to have missed the point of my silly question.
It's real world, in the round, rather than playing with neat toys.
	Joe D.

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 00:38:40 +0200
From: "Arthur B." <arthur-b@ZEELANDNET.NL>
Subject: Re: Air Force dumps NetWare for NT

>This may be a little off subject, but PLEASE help.
>
>There has been an Air Force wide directive to switch to Microsoft
>NT Server as the NOS of choice and MS Exchange as its
>email/messaging package of choice.  In my opinion, not a wise
>choice.
>
>Somewhere, sometime on this list I seem to remember someone
>mentioning a major corporation, maybe Chevron - I'm not sure,
>ditching Novell and going to NT and then realizing the blunder
>they'd made and switching back.  Can anyone confirm this and/or
>have first-hand knowledge of other such occurrences?  If so, I'd
>like to compile the info and send it up the chain ASAP in the hopes
>of stopping a nightmare in the making for us AF net admin types.

That would be a mayor change of great magnitude!
So they must have had a testsite and at least one base that was used
as beta side before they decided to turn to NT.
They must have been very very pleased about it 'cause:
The advantages of turning to NT must be enormous!
They must be 'cause they money involved to make the instant switch possible
is huge (what would half that money do for an existing Netware platform?).

Let us sum up those great advantages:
Replace all existing server hardware or accept a loss in performance.
Replace all existing server software (probarly clientsoftware also)
Reeducate all involved personal.
Buy off existing support contracts.
Buy new support contracts.
etc. etc.

Suppose they choose to change the PCs also:
Replace all existing PCs or accept loss in performance.
Replace all existing software.
Reeducate everybody.
Export/convert/import all existing data.
Export/convert/import all existing backups.
Having to deal with the dumping of thousands of old hardware (store it first!)
Digital communications with externals will have to be set up again.
All menu's, macro's, support utils, etc. must be made again from scratch.
etc. etc.

And on the personal side?
All over the years build up inside expert knowledge will be gone.
Calls to supportteams will triple in the first year.
Troubleshooting knowledge databases from years old will turn invaluable.
User downtime will double/triple because of the above three.
Experienced users will be beginners again.

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 11:25:00 -0400
From: "QUIBELL: MARC" <txh8205@TEXCOM-HOOD.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: Re: RISC/UNIX...etc VS. Netware/CISC

>When deciding on any computer system, you have to look at both the
>hardware AND software as a package. On a CISC (80x86) machine, NetWare
>holds a nice lead over NT and UNIX. But when you climb up to the next
>level, RISC computing, one has to then ask "Where is NetWare?" All you
>have are NT and various flavors of UNIX.

I have a NetFrame with redundant Pentium processors running Netware 4.1
that'll blow away any Unix/NT or especially any pokie Apple server running
any RISC or NOS system. It's amazing what some architectual changes made to
the standard can be done and what true speed can begot with a Pentium
processor. 800MegaByte busses, 12.5MB dedicated port bandwidths, FDDI..fast
and wide. 1000 users running on one little, bitty, Pentium.....Let me know
when RISC climbs up to this level, OK? And the best thing about it, Novell
didn't have to PORT a new version of Netware to NetFrame, any version will
work. Which is the way it should be....

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

Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 03:33:03 -0800
From: "Richard K. Acquistapace" <acquista@NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Netware 4.1 32 Bit Native?

>This is stupid, yet I feel the need to ask.
>
>I hear all this garbage about how great NT is because it's a 32 bit native
>server and how it's supposed to be awsome with Pentium pros because of
>their architecture...  Hasn't Netware been 32 bit for a while?  If so, is
>its performance really improved on a Pentium Pro, as opposed to a 166 MHZ
>Pentium 586?
>
>Seems like the Microsoft Marketing mamchine is a work again if this is the case!

There's no such thing as a stupid question.  Has NetWare been 32 bit?
Yes, It has.  As far as NT vs NDS -- NDS kicks the "butt" out of NT.  You,
like everyone else, are/have been hearing nothing but Microsofts'
marketing departments "Vapor-talk".  NT is a CPU hog.  It needs twice the
horsepower to run, than NetWare.  You know, as well as I, that everyone
"loves" Microsoft products.  They do provide excellent software, eg.
Microsoft Suite.  And NT does do a few minor things better than NetWare.
But heck, I could take a "dump" in a box and mark it a Microsoft NOS (I've
got plenty of time :-)) and there will be thousands of people out in the
market, especially upper management, that doesn't know apples from oranges
that will buy it.  NetWare 4.XX has better file, print, and application
services.  And will, most likely, always.

Check out http://novell.com/education, for more information on the subject
of NDS vs NT's DS.

There is only one consideration that Novell has to deal with -- marketing.

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 20:36:52 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: NetWare & NT

>It looks like the company I work for are interested in migrating from
>Netware 3.12 to Windows NT, but there are still a few unanswered
>questions.  The biggest question I have at the moment is if I have 40
>Novell 3.12 servers, ranging from 486/50 to Pentium (SystemProx X/L
>to Proliant 5000) will I be able to reduce the number of servers I
>have if we go to Windows NT.
>
>It is my view that under netware 4, with proper segmentation,
>I could nearly halve the number of file & print servers I have.  Most
>of our existing netware servers support a maximum of 150 users and
>range from 6-9GB of diskspace.  We are putting more and more software
>on the local desktop (not my decision or preference).
>
>If anyone has an opinion I would like to hear it, I would be even
>happier if it can be backed up with some documentation and/or
>statistics.  Or pointers to the relevant documentation would be
>beneficial.
---------------
	Didn't anyone at your company look into the technical side of
such a change? Good grief Andrew, that's going to be a nightmare at your
place.
	I have a suggestion which at first glance will appear to be silly,
but really is serious. Please contact your Novell office and borrow the
Novell video named "Dare to Compare." Yes, it's a propaganda piece, rather
well done and open, but also ladened with many well known problems of NT.
Naturally some of the NDS not so nice aspects go unmentioned, but what do
you want for free? The propaganda is based on truth, so please view it
and get more information from both Microsoft and Novell.
	NT trust relationships are static and unidirectional. Every single
one must be created by hand. No drop and drag. That's an N by N problem.
In addition, NT servers can hold only one database. If duplication is
needed for both security (robustness that is) and wire speed then each
copy must go on fresh NT server box. Figure on nearly doubling the server
population with NT. User information is server-specific, and when a user
moves locations you personally retype all their information anew and move
their files. Take a very long careful look at the NT trust models because
you will be surprized at what's required in most situations. Do the same
with NDS.
	If you shop around the trade press please read up on server load
carrying capacity as the user population increases. NT does not do very
well. If internal web serving is important then NW 4.11 does it much better
and considerably faster.
	Consider security in terms of tampering. Recall that NT server
is C2 rated if and only if there is no floppy and no network connection.
NW 4.11 is getting C2 rating, full up, on the network. Ask each vendor for
more details. Keep in mind that C2 ratings are done independently so
vendors do not make those evaluations nor can they bend the results. Read
the fine print, as they say.
	The number of NW servers needed depends on traffic as well as
load and politics. Look carefully at traffic because big comms boxes
cost more than NW servers. We can't do that job for you via Email. Then
ask about network monitoring tools.
	Go get that video; you need an entertainment break. And, if you
ask MS for theirs, be sure to get one of Bill Gate's Comdex presentations
because they are fir$t cla$$ (I have one from about three years ago and
love the production).
	Joe D.

---------

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 19:28:38 -0800
From: Brandon Fouts <BrandonF@wsha.org>
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Netware & NT -Reply

With NT you'll need more hardware, more RAM and probably
MORE servers to get anywhere near your Novell
performance. Go to 4.1 with NDS. 

With NT you must setup 'trust relation' between each of the
40 servers - 40x40 is 1600 trust relations - that alone is a big
job. Spend an afternoon at the Novell website and read up on
the comparisons of NT vs Novell. 

I have friends at Boeing using a Novell server in their
department and they have been 'testing' 3 NT servers to
'replace the ONE Novell Server'. Well a year later and they
haven't made the move yet - still in the 'Lab' testing.

Before making such a large scale change - maybe you
should see if you can find anyone who has made this change
successfully. 

Use NT as an application server? Depending on the
application - sure. As an Enterprise Network OS? not me.

PS: I'll probably go NT for my workstation. And I do use it to
run Netscape http: server for our website - wahealthcare.org

---------

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 07:11:19 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: NetWare & NT

>>>It looks like the company I work for are interested in migrating from
>>>Netware 3.12 to Windows NT, but there are still a few unanswered
>>>questions.  The biggest question I have at the moment is if I have 40
>>>Novell 3.12 servers, ranging from 486/50 to Pentium (SystemProx X/L
>>>to Proliant 5000) will I be able to reduce the number of servers I
>>>have if we go to Windows NT.
>>---------------
>>	NT trust relationships are static and unidirectional. Every single
>>one must be created by hand. No drop and drag. That's an N by N problem.
>
>I'm have no intention to defend NT in this (or any other) application
>vis-a-vis NW 4.x (and I hesitate to correct Joe D.). And yes, this is a
>NetWare list. However, based on my reading around NT (with some experience,
>admittedly at very small sites) I think this description is misleading. MS
>trust relationships, while static and unidirectional, are between "domains"
>not between individual servers. The "N" here is not 40 (or 80) servers, but
>1 (or perhaps 2 or 3) domains. And...
>
>>User information is server-specific, and when a user moves locations you
>>personally retype all their information anew and move their files.
>
>...unless my memory is failing me (always a possibility), user information
>is domain-specific. Users login to domains, and one needs only to move their
>information or files when they change domains (and even then, only when the
>inter-domain trust relationships prevent logging in from the new domain).
------------
	Our descriptions would coalesce if there were one NT Server per domain.
That puts matters closer to running NW 3, where info is indeed local to each
server, but of course NW 3 does not have trust relationships to offer or
receive.
	Joe D.

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

Date: 27 Nov 96 05:11:26 EST
From: Marcus Williamson <71333.1665@CompuServe.COM>
To: <netw4-l@bgu.edu>
Subject: NetWare vs NT Server

Apologies for coming late into this discussion. I just joined the list
yesterday and have not seen the 'root' message in this thread. Here is my
standard reply to those asking for comparison info :

For information please see :

'NetWare and Windows NT Server : A Comparative Analysis'

For further info please see this document as well as the Novell documents:

'NetWare 4 Reducing Cost of Ownership'
'When you purchase your network, make sure you get ALL the pieces'
'Evaluating NetWare 4.1'
'Novell Strategic Direction'

These are available from Novell on (801)429-7000 (800-NETWARE) or via your
local Novell office.

You might also like to see Novell Application Notes :

'Building and Auditing a Trusted Network Environment with NetWare 4' Apr 94
'An Introduction to Novell's Open Security Architecture' Aug 94

These are available from Novell Research on 303 297 2725 (800-377 4136)

Info is also available from Novell via the World Wide Web at
http://www.netware.com

Networking industry analysts who have recently done comparisons of Novell
and MS networking strategies and products are:

- Forrester
- IDC Research
- Gartner
- The Burton Group

Please contact these companies to obtain information about their reports.

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

Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 18:55:04 -0500
From: Joe Thompson <JST604@aol.com>
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Re: Netware & NT -Reply

<snip>

The [NT] domain model really kinda sucks.

Try installing a backup domain controller over a router during the inital
install.  I have yet to pull it off under tcp/ip.

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:47:44 +0000
From: seara@btal.com.au
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Re: Netware & NT -Reply

>>>With NT you must setup 'trust relation' between each of the
>>>40 servers - 40x40 is 1600 trust relations - that alone is a big
>>>job. Spend an afternoon at the Novell website and read up on
>>>the comparisons of NT vs Novell.
>
>You've clearly never run an NT network nor do you have a clue on how
>to build a one.  This would be the same as saying you need 40 netware
>trees!

It is a bit pedantic but the comparison was made assuming that each server
would be in a seperate domain, which technically if you think of 3.12
each server is a separate domain.

As someone else pointed out you can and often do put more than 2 or
three servers into a domain.  We currently have 4 or more domains
(resource domains - Lotus Notes, SQL, Development etc.. )
based upon business lines with an authentication domain where all
user accounts are set up.  Our NT workstations are also part of the
authentication domain (about 600).  The authentication domain has the
relationships with the other domains.

eg Authentication - AUAUTA0001
      Notes           - AUNOTD0001
      Dev             - AUDEVD0001
      Business        - AUBUSD0001

Currently we only have about 15 NT servers (Notes, Citrix, DHCP/DSMN/PDC,
BDC, SQL, test/pilot) However if we move our 40 Novell servers to NT we
would be moving them into the existing domains or creating a couple of new
domains (just my thoughts, I am not too close to our NT project).  It was
my hope that next year I could try and halve the novell servers but all
I can see for the next couple of years is pain and an increase in the
number of servers.  Hopefully our direction is not 100% decided yet
and we can at least get them to evaluate/pilot Netware 4.11.  IF the
NDS starts to include NT servers, workstations, user accounts etc. we are
looking stronger.  If not I guess we get more racks for our data centre.

The domain model of NT is pretty limited, particularly when every
administrative task relies on the PDC.  Also for those using NT 4,
throw a file (not a shortcut) on your desktop and then check out
the size of your profile which is stored on the PDC and downloaded
every time you log in.  Also try and create a remote share with NT
4's explorer.  There are a host of problems NT 4 has based on its
immaturity that Netware sorted out several years ago.

Based on the mail generated by the original question it is obvious
that Novell people (myself included) have more respect for NDS than
for NT domains.  However opinion needs to be backed up by
documentation and one person was kind enough to include some
references.  I also figure anything Novell say about comparisions
Microsoft will just refute or gloss over.

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

Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 12:07:16 -0800
From: Darren Rogers <DJLIST@FOURSQUARE.ORG>
Subject: SQL Engines -Reply

>Does Netware work properly in a multiprocessor environment?  I know
>Win NT does <snip>

To say that NT works properly in a multiprocessor environment is like
saying that you can drive a roofing nail with a can of tuna...

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 10:53:32 -0600
From: Soren K Lundsgaard <skl@WRMED.COM>
Subject: interesting discussion in NT list - NT vs. Netware.

I have seen about 6 messages in the NT mailing list (Windows NT Discussion
List <WINNT-L@eva.dc.LSOFT.COM>) about NT vs.  Netware.  I'm surprised
that the messages have largely been fairly balanced, taking into account
the forum that they are occuring in.

One person wrote that NT has better SMP support.

Another wrote that Netware has better performance on file and print serving,
machines being equal.

Another wrote that Netware crashes a lot (definitely not my experience).
[Floyd: nor ours, nor most NetWare installations!]

Someone pointed out that NT does not route.

I'm not sure if the mailing list is archived - it might be good to look
around LSOFT.COM on the web.

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

Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 13:49:48 -0500
From: Debbie Becker <dbecker@CLARK.NET>
Subject: Re: Novell vs. NT

>I hope I don't offend anyone with this question, but is Novell 4.11
>better than NT? I ask because I am studing for a CNE 3.1x, and I
>am wondering if the world is going NT weather I like it or not. If
>NT is the NOS of the future, now would be the best time to switch
>from a CNE goal to an NT goal before I invest a lot more time and $$$.

I think we'd just better get used to the idea that both NetWare and WinNT
are out there and neither one is going away in the near future. I've seen
WinNT used with great success and it makes for a terrific apps server. On
the other hand, I've seen some horrible implementations of it in enterprise
networking situations -- setup/maintenance of multiple domains (which must
"trust" one another) can be a real can of worms and makes NDS look *really*
good!

I think that cross-certification is wise, if you can afford it. If not, get
certified (a CNE cert will cost you less currently and still has a *lot* of
value in the marketplace) and get some hands on experience with NT.

Integration is a hot issue and will only get hotter. Interestingly, Novell
is rolling out a class on NetWare and NT Integration to deal with some of
the issues involved in running a mixed networking environment. Should be a
popular class!

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

Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:49:33 -0700
From: Shawn <opeth@FUTUREONE.COM>
Subject: Re: Novell vs NT

>>I hope I don't offend anyone with this question, but is Novell 4.11
>>better than NT? I ask because I am studing for a CNE 3.1x, and I
>>am wondering if the world is going NT weather I like it or not. If
>>NT is the NOS of the future, now would be the best time to switch
>>from a CNE goal to an NT goal before I invest a lot more time and

For anyone who's interested, there's a pretty good article on NOSes in the
February issue of Byte called "Which OS?". It covers: NetWare, Solaris, NT
Server, IBM OS/2 Warp Server, and IBM OS/400. Unfortunately, it doesn't
look like Byte is going to put the article on their Web Site, so anyone
who's interested will have to [buy it].

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

Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 08:27:33 EST
From: Gilbert Armour <garmour@FRAMATECH.COM>
Subject: Re: Novell vs NT

Check out both MS and NW web sites.  Both have articles comparing the
two.  Obviously, each site only has articles favorable to its product.
Then check web sites of major trade magazies:  ComputerWorld,
InfoWeek, PC Mag, etc.

My $0.02:  Both will be around with NetWare maintaining the edge.  NT
excels as application server but the NT Domain architecture is
unwieldly with its trusts.  NT GUI is great, but remember it takes
many CPU cycles to draw all those pretty pictures.  This includes the
logon screen.  And screen savers pump the CPU to 100% utilization!
Play FreeCell on a stand-alone PC then on a server and see the
difference.  NetWare excels as file and print server and the NDS makes
network management and security a breeze.  The DOS interface is boring
and (mis)typing in commands is no fun.  All CPU cycles go into the
network and its support.  I am seeing our customers mixing the two to
take advantage of their individual strengths.

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:04:49 -0500
From: Dan Schwartz <dan@SNIP.NET>
Subject: Not quite...

Joe D. wrote:
>	If you think that sort of chatter is helping or hindering you
>with the job market may I suggest contacting a respectable head hunter.
>The original message thrust was vacuous, without a basis in fact. This is
>a technical list, not a forum for wild speculation, mud smearing advocacy,
>nor for that matter a shopping mall for new jobs. Anyone who trains for
>and then is dependent upon servicing one version of one product for their
>livelyhood is going to be in difficulty very quickly, no matter what
>vendor.

	The original quote, from an editor at the well-respected Ziff-Davis
publishing group, was intended to point out that Novell is in deep trouble.
And when a Ziff-Davis editor talks, I listen. I may not always agree, but
(usually) they are right on target. If you don't believe me, just pick up a
couple of the magazines listed above and peruse their editorials.

	My own opinion is that Novell will continue to produce a viable
product for many years. But, Micro$oft is catching up - fast. Their NT 4.0
workstation has passed the MacOS in terms of quality and ease-of-use (in
most cases); and now Gates & company have taken dead aim at Novell (and
Netscape).

	I'm just finishing up a complex EtherTalk LAN in a photography
plant [4 employees, 9 Macs + Prosignia 500 server, 3 print server/RIPs (one
Mac, one NT, one dedicated (Quintar)), ethernet switch, 4 color printers, 4
laser printers, SCSI port sharing, etc...], and I just finished going
through  **Novell's own**  Web site about their "Reality Checks"
<http://www.novell.com/intranetware/rc.html> as to why (they think) NetWare
is better than NT/Server... And guess what?

	That's right! Using Novell's *own* comparisons, at least for this
small LAN, NT/Server 3.51 was a better choice. (Please see footnote.)

	Now, I'm not putting down NetWare per se: For over 50-100 users, or
with a dedicated support person, or where hackers are an issue, NetWare &
unix are still king. But the fact that Microsoft has come up with a viable,
stable NOS that, for small business' at least, is a good alternative to the
complexities of NetWare... And the marketplace has responded, with
NetWare's market share falling even faster than Apple's.

	Rescuing Novell:
	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	In my opinion, what Novell needs to do is produce an inexpensive
"stripped" version of NetWare for small LANs: One that is easy to
administer for a business owner (as opposed to a CNA)... Sort of a NetWare
"Lite." Apple has had this for years with their AppleShare Server; and this
would parallel Microsoft's desktop strategy with NT/Workstation and "NT
Lite" (a/k/a Windows 95).

	Don't get me wrong: NetWare is a fine NOS... And it's made a lot of
people rich (including my uncle, who was founder & majority owner of GBC
Technologies [now GBC/Globelle]... Novell's largest distributor). But it's
not for everyone. Micro$oft has recognized this and is eating Novell's
lunch in the small LAN arena... And the market share is the proof of the
pudding.

	Cordially,
	Dan Schwartz,
	Electrical Engineer.

Footnote: Why I chose NT/S 3.51/USSP4 over NetWare 4.1x and AIX:

	 1) Security and domains were non-issues: Only graphics files and
a small FileMaker Pro database folder (<10 MB) are stored on the server;
	 2) Better dual-fork Mac file support with less waste with the
robust NTFS file system and LZW compression: This is important when one is
storing files anywhere from 20 kilobytes up to 300 MB in size;
	 3) Ease of configuring & use:
	   A) Configuring the server (sharing a file/folder/CD) in NT/S is
easy (artist-proof!), because the NT/S interface is very similar to the
MacOS' Finder File Sharing and AppleShare Server;
	   B) It's easier for the owner (a photographer) to find someone
in a pinch who can troubleshoot NT than it is to find a CNA/CNE;
	 4) Better AppleTalk stack support;
	 5) Asante NetDoubler software support is in final beta for
NT/Server. [NetDoubler provides on-the-fly switching from the AppleTalk
stack to the IP stack (via Open Transport) on Macs, and works quite well
with Finder File Sharing & AppleShare Server 4.2.2];
	 6) Support TODAY for RISC platforms: NT is absolutely  *awesome*
on a DEC Alpha (AXP processor) (I have a 166 mHz Multia); and the 64 bit
AXP version of NT/Server is also in final beta up at Maynard. Novell has
had beta's of NetWare for PowerPC (Apple Workgroup Server 9150) and the
Alpha; but where are they?
	 7) Built-in driver-level (software) Level 1 & 5 RAID -- No
complex, expensive hardware-based RAID controller needed. This parallels
three of the Mac graphics workstations that also have software Level 0
(striping) RAID;
	 8) NT's Backup.EXE (included) is similar in look & feel to
Retrospect -- And the artists know how to use that;
	 9) NT allows Mac users to store their password for automatic
mounting at startup: This is no small item when dealing with
(tempermental!) artists who don't like to enter passwords. No kidding on
this one: I've run into this time and again at many a graphics house;
	10) NT allows password-free guest access: According to a previous
answer (right here on this ListSERV!) to the question if NetWare allows
this, the reply was only NetWare 3.12: Not NetWare 4.1. [Again, I stress
that security is a non-issue, almost an impediment, in this (as well as in
many other graphics & photography) facility(s).

	Rather than continue on, I'll post a web page this week with the
detailed LAN layout in color: I need to finish up the drawing for the
customer anyway! You'll need ShockWave for FreeHand plug-in (available at:
<http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/index.html>) or the Adobe Acrobat
Reader (available at: <http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/index.html> to
view it. I'll post the URL when it is posted to the Web.

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:21:30 +0000
From: Billy O'Rourke <Billy@CSVAX1.UCC.IE>
Subject: I may have to mix Netware and NT.

I was 'volunteered' into going to a NT 4.0 installation & maintenance
course by our head of dept who heard somewhere that it would be wise to
replace our NW3.11 system with the above. Having researched the
'Netware v NT' thread from the FAQ, I went into the course armed
deliberately with the intention of bringing up any issue that Netware was
better at. Lo and behold the course organiser, Scott Douglas Briggs,
repeatedly plugged Novell as being infinitely better in file and print
services, routing, faster, less of a CPU hog, etc, the NT 4.0. It was
music to my ears for when I have to report back to my boss.

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:27:05 -0800
From: Floyd Maxwell <floyd@DIRECT.CA>
Subject: Re: Not quite...

Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU> wrote:
>Dan Schwartz wrote:
>> Joe D. wrote:
>>
>>>If you think that sort of chatter is helping or hindering you
>>>with the job market may I suggest contacting a respectable head
>>>hunter. The original message thrust was vacuous, without a basis
>>>in fact. This is a technical list, not a forum for wild speculation,
>>>mud smearing advocacy, nor for that matter a shopping mall for
>>>new jobs. Anyone who trains for and then is dependent upon servicing
>>>one version of one product for their livelyhood is going to be
>>>in difficulty very quickly, no matter what vendor.
>>
>>	Not quite, Joe: The original quote, from an editor at the
>>well-respected Ziff-Davis publishing group, including:
>-----------
>	For those who missed the first message from Dan, the quotes were
>from a hatchet job article by that totally unbiased outfit Ziff Davis
>Publishing. The tenor was "Have you stopped beating your wife?", or "Why
>aren't you running the company the way I tell you?" Such very poor
>journalism is not appropriate to this list.

There is one very simple rule of print publishing...

     One must "support" the companies that advertise

Anyone ever notice how much advertising MS does?  Quite simply, they
_buy_ their favorable press reviews.

A professional in any field should never forget this simple rule.

...and should consider de-subscribing where appropriate -- this
has never been easier, thanks to the Internet.  One can get all
the news/views one needs with minimum ads (i.e. minimum bias, since
the two are directly proportional).

Someone is always willing to do "...whatever..." for free on the
Internet.  And there are millions taking advantage of this.

Personally I think the MS/bloatware approach is the real "dinosaur"
in the J. park.  Like the ubiquitous small cars of today, software
will have to become lean and economical...ad budgets will have to be
slashed and distorted articles should gradually decrease...but
become more aggressive and emotional, "macho man uses W95" or
"the pretty girl is standing next to a Brand X computer", type...how
else to hawk the "much bigger" tail fins of Win95, or the "much
newer" smell of the NT vX "upholstery".

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 02:07:11 -0400
From: "John P. Bruni" <BRUNIJ@ISD.UPMC.EDU>
Subject: NT vs Netware Observations

Recently, there has been quite a bit of traffic on this list related to the NT
vs Netware debate.  Although in the strictest sense, these posting are not
appropriate on this, a technical list, they do address issues that many of us
are having to deal with.

We are at the tail end of converting to an NT infrastructure. While I was not
directly involved in this project I can offer some observations on what impact
this has had.

First of all, we seem to be "consultant" dependent.  Taking ownership of any
of these systems appears to be a very remote possiblity since no one really
knows what they are doing.  I realize that this is a management problem but
when management says "I want this now!", you really have no choice but to let
the consultants do their thing.

Secondly, while connecting to a NT server with a WFWG client is "supported" it
has proven not to be a viable solution.  Performance was awful and the
machines constantly blew up.  Machines running NT are the client of choice
which has meant massive upgrade costs.

Thirdly, our MS consultants are now saying that many of the problems we are
having are due to NT 3.51 and will go away with NT 4.0.  Since we are so deep
into this now, we have no choice but to believe them.  So, in upgrading, they
have found many of the things that worked under 3.51 will not work with 4.0.
In addition, the 4.0 interface is going to require additional training for the
end-users.

Lastly, the administration of NT with it's domains, trusts, trusting etc.,
seems to be quite labor intensive and not really intuitive.  What I don't
understand is that years ago, MS had LANMANAGER that did not seem to take
hold.  If I am not mistaken, isn't NT the same thing?

To sum it all up, technical merits of either NOS did not appear to be
considered.  Those who are in control read the marketing hype in the trade
rags and the rest is history.

---------

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 21:05:23 -0600
From: mark rogowski <markrog@MB.SYMPATICO.CA>
Subject: Re: NOVELL Digest - 19 Feb 1997 to 20 Feb 1997 - Special issue

>Recently, there has been quite a bit of traffic on this list related
>to the NT <snip>

I must sympathize with you.  Microsoft has done
an excellent job of grabbing hold of the corporate "big-wigs" by its
relentless advertising.  So much so that when a CEO reads an ad in a
magazine, he/she just can't resist the temptation to drop everything and
run out to buy NT.

I am seeing this more and more.  All I can say is this.... companies are
getting caught up in the "upgrade loop", where no matter how bad a
Microsoft Networking product is, there will always be a fix for it... at
a nominal cost.

Eventually, the costs of fixes, plus the pressure from IS, will force
them to re-think their stratagy.  What goes around, comes around, just
have patience.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 15:41:25 -0600
From: "Mike Avery" <mavery@mail.otherwhen.com>
To: netw4-l@ecnet.net
Subject: Re: Why go Intranetware

To a businessman, there are two important numbers.

One is what something will cost, the other is what it will earn.

You actually have 3 options with regards to NetWare 4.10.

One is to upgrade to NetWare 4.11, the next is to upgrade to NT 4.0,
the last is to do nothing.  The 4.10 network is maintainable, and not
upgrading will allow you to avoid the upgrade expenses.

So, the questions with regards to each client server are:  What will
it cost to migrate, what will it buy us?  A major cost in any
conversion is user training.

With regards to the platforms, the question is again, why?  Sure, '95
and NT 4.0 are sexy hot platforms, but what do they buy the users?
And if you move to NT 4.0, management will get a mindset more towards
NT.

My advice is sit down, look at it from the users point of view, and
think about what it gives the users, and in turn what that gives the
managers.

Once you have a handle on that, you should be able to start making
estimates about the costs, and benefits, of migrating.

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

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 18:33:19 CDT
From: "Dan Creagan" <dcreagan@scholars.bellevue.edu>
To: netw4-l@ecnet.net
Subject: Re: Why go Intranetware

>We have to give a presentation concerning why we should upgrade our 4.10
>server to Intranetware in stead of Windows NT 4.0.

You will get many biased answers on this (after all, it IS a netware
list!).

My experience:  NT IIS  is much more flexible with databases and
CGIs.  However, NT will die on you and not let you know it did it.
There are  still growing pains in all the MS Internet Software.  Also,
IIS is not a supported product (it's free .. so you get what you pay
for).  If you have platinum service with MS (or whatever it is) and
you call for IIS support, you won't get it.

Netware seems robust enough, but database solutions aren't nearly as
easy.  However, the Perl NLM seems to work pretty well and that opens
up the whole CGI market. NetWare  Web Server is  also is a memory
hog.  24 meg on a 4.11 machine just to get started.  That's worse
than NT.

My favorite combination is NT and WebSite Professional.  Fantastic.

However, you should make up your own mind.  I would suggest visiting
the CNE Net and Microsoft's News Group for IIS. Both sites have
several questions and answers on problems (quite a few problems)
associated with the respective servers.  You may also like to visit
software.ora.com (WebSite's home) ... but remember that
software.ora.com is a commercial site and doesn't provide a forum for
user feedback (that I know of).

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

Date: Thu, 27 Feb 97 09:44:00 -0800
From: Randy Grein <rgrein@halcyon.com>
To: <netw4-l@ecnet.net>
Subject: Re: Novell Vs NT Training

>Ok I'm ready to dish out a few bucks to get certified for MCSE or CNE.
>I am having the worst time trying to figure out which to choose from.
>Eventually I'd like to be certified in both but for now I'm looking for
>peoples' opinions on which they would choose.  Microsoft or Novell???

I think you'll have different answers depending on the audience; as this
is a Netware list I think you're unlikely to get a recommendation to go
with MS certification. I can tell you this:

Right now there are about 10 times as many CNEs as MSCEs, closely
matching the market share. Job offers for MS certification are
disproportionately high as there is a limited pool of candidates; it's
relatively easy to fill a Netware specific position. In addition there's
the relative difficulty of passing the certification: MCSE is harder,
mostly because they have poor study materials and really bad
documentation. It's also much harder to set up a lab for NT; you need a
minimum of 3 machines, but only because you're supposed to set them up
for dual or even triple boot. If you're going to try for the MS TCP/IP
test you'll also need at least one hardware router (A netware server with
multiple NICs would do fine), much of the test and difficulty has to do
with MS networking limitations around routing.

Finally, I'd suggest to consider what you're interested in. Most of the
MS people I've talked to and worked with are relatively clueless about
actual networking, but very sharp on application and desktop issues. For
my money? CNE and a MCP in Win95.

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

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 14:34:50 -0700
From: Shawn <opeth@FUTUREONE.COM>
Subject: UNIX, Novell, NT

>Is there a WWW/FTP or other Internet location, magazine article or other
>publication that lists the definitave differences between Novell/NT/UNIX
>based servers?

Check my web site. Go to the "NetWare vs. NT Articles" on the Novell or
Microsoft section. For a comparison of UNIX vs. NT go to
http://www.byte.com/art/9605/sec6/sec6.htm
There's also a good article in the February 1997 of BYTE, but it's not
availble online. It's called "Which OS?" and gives details on various
NOS's: Solaris, NT, NetWare, etc..

Bear in mind that the technical comparisions don't mean a thing if you
don't have someone to support the platform you go with, eg: UNIX may be the
king at a lot of things, but if you don't have a UNIX admin (or want to
shell out the big bucks for one), then that's not a practical solution.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:30:36 -0700
From: Tim Madden <tmadden@ASPENRES.COM>
Subject: Re: Windows95 and Novell

>Are there serious incompatibilities between Windows95 and NW4.1?  I am
>asking the question because some faculty members are suggesting that 
>after having upgraded three servers to NW4.1, I should switch to WinNT
>servers because of incompatibilities between Windows95 and NW 4.1,
>specifically that some Windows95 software does not work in the Novell
>environment.  I need rebuttal information.

If you didn't get more specifics, then:

1.  The claims can't be substantiated by the faculty and should be
taken with a very large grain of salt.  (i.e. the faculty don't know
what their talking about - surprise)

2.  You need to press them to be more specific so you can track down
the problems.

To answer your question, as I'm sure you've guessed, no.  There are
no incompatibilities that will prevent Win95 from working with Novell
4.1x.  Now, there are some areas where the two don't work in perfect
harmony, such as Group Policies, NDS access, SAP advertisement,
and others.  These are not crippling, but they do introduce some
gotchas, yes, buts.... or don't forgets.

I, and probably many others on this list, feel your faculty have
succumbed to the M$ marketing machine.  "If M$ made (stole) it, it
must be good".  You will find other "incompatibilities between Win95
and WinNT - ever try administering an NT Server from a 95
workstation.  Don't bother.

---------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:28:54 -0800
From: Ian Dobson <idobson@WCS.NET>
Subject: Re: Windows95 and Novell

Wow, The Bill Gates brainwashing thing is worse than I first
suspected :)

No, I think that they have it the wrong way around, I havn't yet seen
an application that can't run in WIN95/NW4.1(workstation app)
envronment. But I have seen a few that will not run in the WIN95/NT
environment, usually dos apps though like ACCPAC  Accounting  for
one.  I guess if they think that your server is too fast and easy to
manage and you have way too much uptime, and you play too much golf.
Then I could see why they would want NT :)

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 18:11:40 PST
From: Kevin Miller <kevinm@UHS.BERKELEY.EDU>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: Novell to NT server conversions

>I am leaving the respondent anonymous.  But his answer is a follow-up to
>the original statement that he was thinking of switching from Netware to
>NT.  I am the curious one who may be in the same position.  Has anyone
>any rational comments regarding the comments below?
>
>------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>
>>I'm curious, because I may be in the same position.  What software usage
>>do you anticipate that would run on NT but not Netware 4.11?
>
>I'm not the network administrator, but I'm told that Lotus Notes is one
>example, and certain e-mail or "Intranet" applications that use "rich
>text" formats that include graphics, etc.  We also use Group Systems
>conferencing software and their new version will require an NT server.
>
>We are betting that there will be more and more of this development
>aimed at NT.

There is no reason why NT Servers and NetWare cannot coexist.  If
fact, they coexist rather well (thanks to Novell).  NT Server is an
excellent applications server.  File and print?  No way.  Aside from
the huge issue of administration, NT just doesn't have the features to
make it a robust file and print server.

You only have to spend a little time running both NetWare and NT
servers to see this.

Here at the Health Services, we use IntraNetware for all file and
print services, as well as a NetWare-based Laboratory system.  We use
Workstation Manager to manage our NT workstations painlessly.

We use a singe Windows NT server to run our Web services (Netscape
Enterprise and Proxy servers), and our backup software (ArcServe NT).
We don't have to worry much about NT domains, since the only members
of the domains are servers themselves. Since we currently only have
one NT server, it's even easier!

Depending on how the Novonyx deal and Novell's Border Services work
out, there is a good possibility that we will be moving the Netscape
server (web and proxy) to a NetWare box.  I can't wait until Novell
finishes the NDS port to NT.  At that point, we will truly have a
cohesive environment.

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

Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 13:41:22 -0500
From: Howard Haradon <haradon@MERCURY.CONNECTI.COM>
Subject: Re: Choose Novell or NT

>Life has turned ugly on me. My university has asked me to choose
>between Novell or NT. All these years we have used Novell. But
>suddenly with the emergence of Windows'95. Our senior staff, feels
>NT is the way to go. In all our academic labs we still use Win 3.1.
>But for the fall semester of 1997. We've been asked to move to Win'95.
>And that's when they feel NT is better than NetWare.
<snip>

Like the majority on this list I would naturally favor Netware
over NT.  Where file and print services are concerned it is
clearly better.  PC Mag's Mar. 26, 1996 benchmark of the two
made this evident.  It appeared on page 161 of that issue &
I have summarized it below.

1.  When both NOSs were run over 10Mb ethernet they performed
    about equally.  Here the physical network was the bottle-
    neck.

2.  When tested over Fast Ethernet the performance of Netware
    began pulling ahead at about 14 client stations.  It con-
    tinued to pull away from NT Server until the number of
    clients reached 44.  At this point the NW 3.12 system showed
    a throughput of 70 Mbps, NT Server with FAT showed about
    37 Mbps, and NT Server with NTFS showed 30 Mbps (? ?).

3.  Performance for all systems leveled out as clients were
    added up to a total of 60.  The Netware performance con-
    tinued to be about double that of NT.

4.  This test was just one facet of an overall article on server
    performance, but the superiority of Novell is further de-
    picted in the charts on pp. 168-169 which show the various
    servers' performance under NT Server and under Netware 3.12.
    Again, when loaded to 44 clients the best perfoming NT Server
    could do no better than about 35 Mbps while the winning Net-
    ware server achieved better than 70 Mbps.

5.  The magazine contacted Microsoft to get their story NT's per-
    formance.  Ms suggested a number of configuration changes
    (including the interesting assertion that NT Server does
    better with only one adapter!), but the PC Mag tech. folks
    concluded that "NT Server has a way to go before it catches
    up with NetWare on our benchmark tests".

My own thoughts are that Novell has had over 10 years to develop
robust multi-tasking software.  Microsoft has little experience
with successful multi-tasking systems but has shown itself to be
a very successful marketing company.

---------

Date:    Fri, 23 May 1997 17:39:33 EST
From:    Adam G Morey <amorey@CCMAIL.STX.COM>
Subject: Re[2]: Choose Novell or NT

>My own thoughts are that Novell has had over 10 years to
>develop robust multi-tasking software.  Microsoft has little
>experience with successful multi-tasking systems but has shown
>itself to be a very successful marketing company.

     Let's see, didn't Microsoft and IBM codevelop OS/2?  What about
     VMS/Unix - didn't Microsoft have a little something to do with that?
     Hasn't NT Server and been on the market for about five years?  I
     thought NT Server supported asymmetrical and symmetrical multi
     processing on 64 bit Risc chips, Intel and PowerPCs.

     I submit that NT workstation will be the most successful multi-tasking
     system is the history of computing.

     Netware has faster I/O yes, more experience with Multi-Tasking - I
     think not.

     Adam Morey CNE, MCP
     Network Manager
     Hughes Aircraft

---------

Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 17:26:48 EST
From: Adam G Morey <amorey@CCMAIL.STX.COM>
Subject: Re: Choose Novell or NT

What I say may be a tad unpopular for this list, so I'll begin my
comments with a short history.  I've had my CNE for four years now and
have worked with Novell from the 2.x to present.  I'm currently
working on my mcse and support 400+ users with 12 netwares and, 4 nt
servers, and three linux servers.  I will try to avoid trashing either
OS by pointing out their bugs, I'll concentrate instead on their
features.

There are some advantages to windows 95/windows NT server solutions,
or what Microsoft calls - "The Microsoft Network".  The most important
being the client.  The Microsoft client for Microsoft networks is
good.  It doesn't get updated every month and doesn't have any
complicated bells and whistles that will make system configuration
difficult.  You'll have your choice of protocol to use IPX or TCPIP.
(NT Server comes with a good DHCP server for easy admin - yes I know
that Intranetware does too.  Logon/login scripts are much less
sophisticated with NT, there are third party script engine you can run
at startup, if you go NT I strongly suggest you find one of these -
KIXSTART is a good one, otherwise NT relies on batch files for logon
scripts.)

Printing is much easier in a windows95/windows NT server environment.
By creating printers and printer pools on the NT server, the drivers
are loaded at the server once - never again does a print driver need
to be installed.  Every time a user connects to a printer, the driver
is pulled from the server.  NT server supports LPR printing to UNIX
printers and DLC printing to HP jet direct cards.  (I realize that
Intranetware has distributed print services coming down the pike,
maybe it's here in beta)  NT Server also has an easy way to change
printers from PCL to Postscript with some standard page separator
files.

Granted pulling the drivers over the LAN makes the entire network less
efficient, but it also makes it more manageable.  Let' add some more
components that make life easier in an Microsoft network environment
of your size  (80 computers)

IIS Web server (I know Intranetware has one, and soon Netscape with
have an NLM), DNS server (Intranetware has one too), FTP server
(Intranetware can do this too), Remote Access PPP Server with client
software for DOS, Windows 3.x, Windows 95, Windows NT and slip support
for MAC and Unix for 256 connections (very impressive piece of
software), Macintosh support (Included with Intranetware), Netware
Gateway Support, Microsoft Mail will be loaded on each computer
(nothing like free email), remote performance monitoring, server file
compression (Included with Intranetware), GUI server based backup
utility and software RAID are available out of the box.

The total cost of installing an NT server and Intranetware are
basically a wash.  You'll need the fastest computer with oodles of RAM
to make NT happy.  Netware doesn't need quite the processing power or
the RAM.  Make sure to remember that when you finally make a decision,
don't settle for anything less than a pentium pro 200 if you choose
NT.

I suggest you check out www.bhs.com to see just how much ported unix
code and new NT software is available.  It's mind boggling.  Don't
forget that NT runs text based OS/2 and some UNIX code out of the box.
 It's very easy to port code to NT, there are many documentation
project on the web right now dedicated to this effort.

I've been administering NT servers along side of netware for about two
years now.  The NT servers have always had some features that make the
Netware servers look bad, they've always had a web server, they've
always had distributed printing, they've always had graphic interfaces
for config,admin and performance monitoring and they've always had
Remote Access PPP dial-in support, NT server performance monitoring
and error log system puts netware to shame, they've always had
automatic workstation reconnect, and NT also supports per seat or per
connection license schemes.  Of course NT has always been a little
slower, quite a bit more talkative on the wire and requires you to
reboot them more often when making config changes.  Although the
rebooting isn't quite so bad with the auto-reconnect.

>The faculty and students want to be able to get to any application
>in the fastest possible way, and consistently. Meaning if a
student
>using a machine decides to delete or move one of the application folders,
>the next student who clicks on the shortcut/icon. Should launch some
>process that verifies that the folders and files to launch the
>application are in the right place, and then launch it. Sort of a rebuild
>process.

Why not just employ NT on the workstation, format to NTFS and remove
the rights to delete any of the office files on the local hard disk?

>1. Are you using NT and Netware ? If yes, can one do this better than the
>   other.

NAL may be the ticket, it does support template/image installations,
not sure if it has a check feature prior to running an application.

Backoffice has a product that does the same kind of installations, not
sure if this is what you need either.

>2. The speed difference has to be more than 3/5 seconds, or I'll be forced
>   to join NT.

Is that three fifths of a second?  If you don't want to use NT, just
test the server on a 486/66 with 32 Megs and ram and compare it to
Intranetware on the same box.  NT will lose every time.  However, if
you want to be realistic, test both Operating Systems on a state of
the art Pentium Pro, you'll be pleased with NTs performance I think.

I realize I just wrote a book, but this is a topic I feel will not get
a truly unbiased response on this list, so I decided to take the time
to and address the issue.

In closing I think you have a pretty tough decision to make.  I didn't
speak about NDS at all, as I don't believe small networks get much
benefit from NDS except the centralized admin, NT domains have the
same centralized admin features with a single login name for multiple
servers.  Look for a Microsoft NDS clone with NT server 5.0.  NT
domain also allow for a very cool peer-to-peer networking in a
Microsoft network if you're interested at all in peer-to-peer
networking.

I can honestly say my NT server (ALR Pentium Pro) has only hung once
during the past year, this is comparable to my netware servers (Compaq
Proliant).

You should make your decision on the availability of fast server
hardware (if you can't get a fast server, don't get NT), availability
of the features you require (if you need a cheap robust dial-in server
you should slant towards NT, if you need NDS you should choose
Intranetware), and the amount of time you need have to
install/administer these features (most cases, netware involves
separate products with different installation and configuration files,
NT is centralized around the control panel).

I like netware and I like Windows NT server.  You can't decide on a
Network Operating system by comparing them version to version alone.
You need to take a shot and predict where do you think the operating
system will be in two months, six months, one year, two years?  As
sure as Bill Gates is the richest man in America I am confident that
Windows NT server will get better and better every couple of months
with new free features and the code will get tighter and tighter as
every trade rag and security team in the world try to find bugs and
Microsoft squirms to fix them.  Intranetware on the other hand may
follow the exact same path if they can just market themselves better
at home and over seas.

Just one closing thought,

When was the last time you saw a Novell commercial during Prime Time
TV.  How many IS managers do you think just started to wonder whether
they should start to look at NT?

I wish Novell had half the marketing savy of Microsoft.

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

Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 03:47:27 +0200
From: "Arthur B." <arthur-b@ZEELANDNET.NL>
Subject: Re: Choose Novell or NT

>What I say may be a tad unpopular for this list, so I'll begin my
>comments with a short history.  I've had my CNE for four years now and
>have worked with Novell from the 2.x to present.  I'm currently
>working on my mcse and support 400+ users with 12 netwares and, 4 nt
>servers, and three linux servers.  I will try to avoid trashing either
>OS by pointing out their bugs, I'll concentrate instead on their
>features.

I've been playing in the fields now for 10+ years if not longer.
I've been involved with simple workgroup PC's up to international mainframe
WAN's that are hooked with god-knows-what.

I've watched decision makers underestimate just about everything.
Thinking that solutions come out of a box. That costs restrict themselves to
just hardware and software alone. That a simple course can replace the benifits
of know-how and skills build over years. That their own companies unique
information and material flows fit easily in standard software. That switching
existing platforms is just a matter of export/import. And that admins only cost
money...

As for certification. Great PR and salary benifits IMO.
It does tell something about someone. But skills, know-how, experience,
attitude and most important motivation are the things I think make the
difference.

>There are some advantages to windows 95/windows NT server solutions,
>or what Microsoft calls - "The Microsoft Network".  The most important
>being the client.  The Microsoft client for Microsoft networks is
>good.  It doesn't get updated every month and doesn't have any

It forces you to SET BINDERY CONTEXT.
I don't call that good at all. Workstations shouldn't decide what is turned on
or off at the fileserver level.

>complicated bells and whistles that will make system configuration
>difficult.  You'll have your choice of protocol to use IPX or TCPIP.

It has been a long time since I had to alter the standard configuration of
Client32. The fact that it is there does gives me more chance to deal with
special situations though.

>(NT Server comes with a good DHCP server for easy admin - yes I know
>that Intranetware does too.  Logon/login scripts are much less
>sophisticated with NT, there are third party script engine you can run
>at startup, if you go NT I strongly suggest you find one of these -
>KIXSTART is a good one, otherwise NT relies on batch files for logon
>scripts.)

Flexible login scripts are very important.
Deployed right they can take away a lot of working hours better spend on other
things. I take it as a sign that NT doesn't see it as that important.

>Printing is much easier in a windows95/windows NT server environment.
>By creating printers and printer pools on the NT server, the drivers
>are loaded at the server once - never again does a print driver need
>to be installed.  Every time a user connects to a printer, the driver
>is pulled from the server.  NT server supports LPR printing to UNIX
>printers and DLC printing to HP jet direct cards.  (I realize that
>Intranetware has distributed print services coming down the pike,
>maybe it's here in beta)  NT Server also has an easy way to change
>printers from PCL to Postscript with some standard page separator
>files.
>
>Granted pulling the drivers over the LAN makes the entire network less
>efficient, but it also makes it more manageable.  Let' add some more

I've yet to encounter a site that has problems with the way Novell handles
network printing.
I know of many sites that will pay a performance penalty (and probably need to
do some investments) if every connect to every printer would result in a
complete printdriver server pull.

>components that make life easier in an Microsoft network environment
>of your size  (80 computers)
>
>IIS Web server (I know Intranetware has one, and soon Netscape with
>have an NLM), DNS server (Intranetware has one too), FTP server
>(Intranetware can do this too), Remote Access PPP Server with client
>software for DOS, Windows 3.x, Windows 95, Windows NT and slip support
>for MAC and Unix for 256 connections (very impressive piece of
>software), Macintosh support (Included with Intranetware), Netware
>Gateway Support, Microsoft Mail will be loaded on each computer
>(nothing like free email), remote performance monitoring, server file
>compression (Included with Intranetware), GUI server based backup
>utility and software RAID are available out of the box.

Is software RAID a good thing?

Most companies I know of will say:
great, how much discount if I don't want it?

And, so far common for Microsoft, the free goodies in the box have a bigger
brother that cost money to get hold of. But you need them to make life easier.

>The total cost of installing an NT server and Intranetware are
>basically a wash.  You'll need the fastest computer with oodles of RAM

What do you see as cost?
Things like stability, easy administration, level of control, level of
security, cost of ownerschip, access to knowledge databases, access to insight
technical data, MTBF, duration of downtime, disaster control, loss of
investment in gained know-how and skills and other important things?

>to make NT happy.  Netware doesn't need quite the processing power or
>the RAM.  Make sure to remember that when you finally make a decision,
>don't settle for anything less than a pentium pro 200 if you choose
>NT.

Netware uses a DOS screen. It seems to have advantages.

>I suggest you check out www.bhs.com to see just how much ported unix
>code and new NT software is available.  It's mind boggling.  Don't

Netware can run a lot, a huge lot, of software.

>forget that NT runs text based OS/2 and some UNIX code out of the box.
> It's very easy to port code to NT, there are many documentation
>project on the web right now dedicated to this effort.

It is never easy to port code.

>I've been administering NT servers along side of netware for about two
>years now.  The NT servers have always had some features that make the
>Netware servers look bad, they've always had a web server, they've
>always had distributed printing, they've always had graphic interfaces
>for config,admin and performance monitoring and they've always had
>Remote Access PPP dial-in support, NT server performance monitoring
>and error log system puts netware to shame, they've always had
>automatic workstation reconnect, and NT also supports per seat or per
>connection license schemes.  Of course NT has always been a little
>slower, quite a bit more talkative on the wire and requires you to
>reboot them more often when making config changes.  Although the
>rebooting isn't quite so bad with the auto-reconnect.

A server should be as fast as possible. If that defies SVGA screens then please
do so. I can read logfiles and errorlogs. I don't need a graphical wizard
telling me to call support or contact the software vendor after 6 mouseclicks.
There's a need for speed. Visual amusement comes much later.

A server shouldn't fill up the wire with packets that aren't absolute
necessary. If it can do the job without such packets then keep on having them
should have great benifits. What are those benifits?

Performance/server monitoring is best done by interviewing users, examining
logfiles and making use of a sniffer. The on-board performance monitor alone
doesn't give you that.

Another thing on this GUI on the server.
It requires a SVGA card (claims more recources). It requires a SVGA monitor
(cost more). If you need a console master then it will cost more. The processor
has more data to process. You need a mouse that claims a port and/or IRQ. And
for what?
To read things you should be able to read from logfiles alone. And those are
text.

> >The faculty and students want to be able to get to any application
> >in the fastest possible way, and consistently. Meaning if a
> student
> >using a machine decides to delete or move one of the application folders,
> >the next student who clicks on the shortcut/icon. Should launch some
> >process that verifies that the folders and files to launch the
> >application are in the right place, and then launch it. Sort of a rebuild
> >process.
>
>Why not just employ NT on the workstation, format to NTFS and remove
>the rights to delete any of the office files on the local hard disk?

$$$

> >1. Are you using NT and Netware ? If yes, can one do this better than the
>    >other.
>
>NAL may be the ticket, it does support template/image installations,
>not sure if it has a check feature prior to running an application.
>
>Backoffice has a product that does the same kind of installations, not
>sure if this is what you need either.
>
> >2. The speed difference has to be more than 3/5 seconds, or I'll be forced
>     >to join NT.

Normally the quickest one would receive an extra point and the testers would
move on to the next test mentioned on the check list.
Why this number? As a result (?) from what test? How long is the duration? etc.
etc.


>Is that three fifths of a second?  If you don't want to use NT, just
>test the server on a 486/66 with 32 Megs and ram and compare it to
>Intranetware on the same box.  NT will lose every time.  However, if
>you want to be realistic, test both Operating Systems on a state of
>the art Pentium Pro, you'll be pleased with NTs performance I think.

$$$

>I realize I just wrote a book, but this is a topic I feel will not get
>a truly unbiased response on this list, so I decided to take the time
>to and address the issue.
>
>In closing I think you have a pretty tough decision to make.  I didn't
>speak about NDS at all, as I don't believe small networks get much
>benefit from NDS except the centralized admin, NT domains have the

Wrong.

>same centralized admin features with a single login name for multiple

Thanks to Novell  who released their NDS code to the public.

>servers.  Look for a Microsoft NDS clone with NT server 5.0.  NT

It will be a while before NT5 is released.

>domain also allow for a very cool peer-to-peer networking in a
>Microsoft network if you're interested at all in peer-to-peer
>networking.

This is nice for smaller office that usually don't have much money to spend. In
fact you could drop the (any) fileserver all together and move on using Win311
or Win95 to set up the peer to peer network.

>
>I can honestly say my NT server (ALR Pentium Pro) has only hung once
>during the past year, this is comparable to my netware servers (Compaq
>Proliant).
>
>You should make your decision on the availability of fast server
>hardware (if you can't get a fast server, don't get NT), availability

Know that there is a list of recommended hardware from Microsoft.
And not without reason.

>of the features you require (if you need a cheap robust dial-in server

You can allways hook up PCAnyWhere to a workstation.

>you should slant towards NT, if you need NDS you should choose
>Intranetware), and the amount of time you need have to
>install/administer these features (most cases, netware involves
>separate products with different installation and configuration files,
>NT is centralized around the control panel).

Netware, like NT, often works with third party software.
All third party software has its own views on how installing, configuration and
maintaining should be done.

>I like netware and I like Windows NT server.  You can't decide on a
>Network Operating system by comparing them version to version alone.
>You need to take a shot and predict where do you think the operating
>system will be in two months, six months, one year, two years?  As

The question you need to ask yourself is what is needed to get the job done for
a total price that is less then the benifits it will give you.
You wouldn't install a mainframe because it's to pricy and no-one would know
how to work with the thing nor the software for the first couple of months.
The company would be broke before you know it.

>sure as Bill Gates is the richest man in America I am confident that
>Windows NT server will get better and better every couple of months
>with new free features and the code will get tighter and tighter as
>every trade rag and security team in the world try to find bugs and
>Microsoft squirms to fix them.  Intranetware on the other hand may

Is this an invitation to become a beta test site?

>follow the exact same path if they can just market themselves better
>at home and over seas.

Netware has been in this market for years now. It has outstanding security and
cost effective administration. It does require knowledge beyond the wisdom
wizards can give you. But then most people don't fix their car themselves. They
leave that to someone who knows what he's dealing with. Because in the long run
that would cost less.

>Just one closing thought,
>
>When was the last time you saw a Novell commercial during Prime Time
>TV.  How many IS managers do you think just started to wonder whether
>they should start to look at NT?

A lot of them.
How many of them will make cost efficient decisions?

>
>I wish Novell had half the marketing savy of Microsoft.

Novell lacks marketing skills.
Microsoft lacks other skills.

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

From ???@??? Mon May 26 12:55:31 1997
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 03:59:28 +0200
From: "Arthur B." <arthur-b@ZEELANDNET.NL>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Choose Novell or NT

>>My own thoughts are that Novell has had over 10 years to
>>develop robust multi-tasking software.  Microsoft has little
>>experience with successful multi-tasking systems but has shown
>>itself to be a very successful marketing company.
>
>Let's see, didn't Microsoft and IBM codevelop OS/2?  What about

OS/2 is a stable, well performing and very configurable OS.
If MicroSoft had a hand in this then why isn't Windows and NT also?

>VMS/Unix - didn't Microsoft have a little something to do with that?

Pardon? Any specifics on this?

>Hasn't NT Server and been on the market for about five years?  I

Five years allready?
It could be interesting to investigate what Microsoft achieved with their NT
product in those five years and what Novell achieved with Netware.

>thought NT Server supported asymmetrical and symmetrical multi
>processing on 64 bit Risc chips, Intel and PowerPCs.

I would like to return to the times where version 2 of a software product ment
that you could do more faster with *less* hardware or at least with the
hardware you allready had.
Back then this was mostly stimulated by the price of the hardware.

Nowedays we find it normal that when the software doesn't perform as required
we simply add or replace hardware. Allready knowing that the next version
number will require even more. The only surprise will be how much hardware.
But it doesn't stop there. To really make use of all the new goodies you need
to upgrade workstations and software packages too. All in all a lot of money.
And someone has to do all that, causing downtime (installing) along the way.
Normally 'someone' is payed too.
And then that 'someone' needs to master the new environment along with a lot of
users.

Missing out on all the goodies can save a lot of money. More then most realize.

>I submit that NT workstation will be the most successful multi-tasking
>system is the history of computing.

Deploying a product like NT workstation in an average working environment would
cost a lot of money (see above). And what do you get in return?
The insurance that the next hype might be NetStations or Web-PC's? Bye bye
investment, welcome new investments.

Following hypes shouldn't be something companies get involved with. Unless when
it saves money and/or generates money and/or gives a huge PR advantage and/or
is part of their primary goal.

>Netware has faster I/O yes, more experience with Multi-Tasking - I
>think not.

I wouldn't know about experience. I do have an opinion on who was the first
to come up with a stable multi-tasking environment and still has up to this
day.

<start commercials>
All in all I've to admit that Microsoft has the biggest marketing machine
in the world right now and that a lot of companies wish to ride along with
it (after all those company aren't there to save your money). Microsoft
products do improve over time. Novell is out there also. Their latest
products have NDS. It has the kind of goodies that can save more money
than it would cost to bring in. Certainly if you already have Netware.
<end commercials>

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

Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 08:18:27 PST
From: Harry Campbell <harryc@AMC.COM>
Subject: Re[4]: Choose Novell or NT

>>VMS/Unix - didn't Microsoft have a little something to do with that?
>Pardon? Any specifics on this?

Perhaps there is a little confusion here from the original poster.

Microsoft had a hand in developing SCO XENIX - sort of like UNIX in a way,
I guess...

The guy that Microsoft brought in to be chief architect/driving force for
NT was working for Digital and in some way on VMS. (Sorry - don't remember
all the details...)


Dave Cutler ran the VMS development at Digital. Gordan Leitwin was the
Chief OS/2 Architect for Microsoft preceding the breakup with IBM over the
direction the development would pursue. Cutler was brought in to continue
Micorosoft's pursuit of Windows NT from its early incarnation as 0

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

Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:27:49 -0400
From: Maryann Sheehan <msheehan@SCTCORP.COM>
Subject: Re: NetWare 4.11 vs NT 4.0

>I've seen comparisions between NT 4.0 vs NetWare 3.xx and NetWare 4.1
>vs NT 3.51, but not NetWare 4.1x vs NT 4.0.  We are planning to run
>ServerBench on two identical hardware servers with NT 4.0 and NW 4.11.
>Does anyone know where I can find NW 4.11 vs NT 4.0 comparisions?
>Everything I've heard says NetWare will kick NT's butt in file and print.
>Is this correct or am I going to get a rude awakening?

I have also been looking for NT4.0 vs NetWare 4.11 comparisons.  Trying to
find an unbiosed, updated comparison that will truthfully tell me what OS
is better for what service has been next to impossible.  I admit I am a
Novell fan, but I seriously need to do what's best for our Corporation.
Below are two links that I've found.  One is, again, NT3.51 vs NetWare 4.1
but looks good.  If I find others, I will let you know.

	http://tech.ties.k12.mn.us/news/nos/
	http://www.wcmh.com/lantimes/usetech/compare/pcNWvsNT.html

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

Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 16:46:31 +1000
From: "MICHAEL D. SETZER II" <MICHAEL@GCCCC.GUAM.NET>
Subject: Check out the Review on Micro$oft Zero Administration Kit

I just saw this at the Lantimes site.

The Ratings for the Zero Administration Kit by Micro$oft.

Ease of setup      POOR
Extensibility      POOR
Usefulness         POOR
Value              GOOD

Price:             FREE (Guess that is why it is a Good Value)

The page is at: http://www.wcmh.com/lantimes/97/97oct/710a022a.html

It is only an intial release, but it might get people to take a second
look at just jumping onto the M$ bandwagon.

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

