
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NW-vs3NT.DOC -- 19980312 -- 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: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 19:06:16 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Application server?

>I would like to set up a application server on our LAN to take some
>of the load off our main login server.

	Step one to enlightenment: drop the marketing jargon. In this
case "application server" from MS salespersons. It is amazing how much
better one feels afterward.

>At present, the main server (Netware 3.11 - 250 user on Compaq
>ProLiant) serves SiteMetered apps such as MS Office and Pegasus mail.
>
>Could anyone please define "Application Server" for me? Do I need
>special software? or is it just another server that users would
>attach to to get applications? Do I need a full Novell licence (250)
>for users to attach to this 2nd server?

	AS is a MS phrase meaning any machine running NT. It's a game
and we are supposed to be the unquestioning pawns. As with any code phrase
we look behind the magic curtain and ask, what in particular, do we really
need, hardnosed need, in detail. And in your case we can't answer for you
with the information available in your message.
	In MS-speak, they require you to run applications on that NT
server machine. That's right, the apps eat cpu/memory/disk on that machine
rather than on the clients (where cpu cycles are thus devoted to mouse clicks
and screen paints). It takes very little imagination to sense what happens
if many such tasks run at the same time on that AS. Even MS knows that and
instead they half-bake the pie by saying "Oh, well, of course we mean you
must run BackOffice or similar." NT can run more than that, as we are aware,
but not a great deal and still serve files/printers. Think of NT as a slow
wierd sub-Unix and you will have the right idea.
	System managers are occassionally called upon to be creative and
design systems, as contrasted to "forced down our throat" cases. Here you
are with just such an opportunity. Were I in your seat I'd start a study
of what is really needed, costs, political factors, and compose a set of
plans. As others have suggested, give careful consideration to running
INW 4.11 as a fine file/print/dhcp/web/border-router server. Look at
network traffic and other uses to scale the problem (i.e. always put
numbers into the mix) for lan adapters, disks, and maybe even multiple
servers. Hey, this could be real fun.
	Finally, delete "application server" from your vocabulary and
report upward on all the specific things you could accomplish for everyone.
Let them try to define AS.
	Joe D.

----------

Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:43:42 -0700
From: The Abundant One <sfinney@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Application Server

>	Finally, delete "application server" from your vocabulary and
>report upward on all the specific things you could accomplish for
>everyone. Let them try to define AS.

Well now wait a minute Joe...

True Application Servers like Citrix Winframe do a pretty good job of
filling remote access needs.  Its much better to dial into a application
server and run your apps from a machine which is directly plugged into
your lan, then to use something like NT's RAS or Netware Connect.

And if you are using the phone company for Wide Area Networking,
application servers can pay for themselves in saved telephone line
charges.

Example:  If you wanted to connect a remote site with 4 computers to your
local lan, running IP and IPX, I would say you would need a MINIMUM of
384K bandwidth to have things run a tolerable speeds.  A frac T1 at 384K
frame relay is about $300/mo at each site, $600/mo total here in tucson.
A full T1 is what you would really need, and that would be about $400/mo
per site.   So your paying $600/mo and your WAN is crawling.  So instead
you buy a $10,000 applicaiton server (server+sofware) and now you dont
need an expensive FT1 line cause the only thing going over the wan is
screen+keyboard+mouse information.  56K can easily support 4 users.  56K
DDS frame relay is about $85/mo per site, so you would save a total of
$430/month in telephone charges.   $10,000/430 = 23.25.  So Basiclly the
application server would pay for itself in less than 24 months, and you
have better performance, reliability, and less configuration hastles.
Another benefit is that when you buy a application server, suddenly every
old piece of crap 386 in your shop can run all the latest apps.

---------

Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 19:09:25 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Application Server

[see the previous messages]
--------
	Yes indeed, Sean. But in honesty if we asked 99.999% of the managers
what App Server meant we would discover it means what MS says it means: NT.
	The Citrix products do work well, I understand from reading reports
from others, and it is certainly one way of dealing with slow/expensive
lines. I suspect they need another marketing term by now.
	Unix machinery is even more widely used this way, and works well
generally.
	Heck, while comparing topologies, we might say real terminal to
mainframe, and X Window system are other examples of it. Naturally that
looks bad in publicity. Yet these are App Server situations too. Amusing.
	Joe D.

---------

Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:58:14 -0500
From: Eliot Ware <wares@TIDALWAVE.NET>
Subject: Re: Application Server

[see the previous messages]
Not speaking for Joe D. but I believe the point may have been relative to
the term Application Server.  As you've illustrated above, it means
different things to different people.  Your definition of the Winframe
as an application server (running apps on the Winframe with what amounts
to smart terminals attached) vs M$ concept of a database or whatever
performing the server side of a client-server relationship (not that
client-server has a universal definition) vs the "old timers" definition
of an application server being any server that has applications (WP,
123, etc) installed.  All very confusing.

---------

Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 11:25:42 -0700
From: The Abundant One <sfinney@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Application Server

>	Yes indeed, Sean. But in honesty if we asked 99.999% of the
>managers what App Server meant we would discover it means what MS says
>it means: NT.

Yeah, as far as I know the only thing you can do with a NT server which
could make it a "application server" is run the telnetd and then you can
telnet into it and gain access to a DOS prompt.  But if you listen to MS
marketing reports you would think the NT server would be following you
home at night and help out with the dishes...

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

Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 18:06:35 +0000
From: Jed Proujansky & Joan Deely <jproujan@K12S.PHAST.UMASS.EDU>
Subject: Re: THEY want to scrap Netware, please help

>The non-technical decision makers here want to scrap Netware and go
>solely NT server.
>
>We have a perfectly good system running Netware 3.11 250 user. It
>also runs bootp, mercury/pegasus mail, SiteMeter. I would like to
>upgrade to IntraNetware but don't have a hope...
>
>The reasons given is:
>Education Dept "model computing environment" is NT server, therefore
>we must change to comply. I have told them that NT server AND Netware
>can coexist perfectly well, as it is already here.

If you do stand a chance I would reccomend looking the advantage of
using Intranetware 4.11 to manage NT. It is a better tool for
managing NT than NT. If you are looking a file and print services
then NT offers nothing but slower performance. If you ar looking at a
client server model, NT is advantagous. Internet connectivity. Both
do the job (border manager is a pretty useful and complete tool). I
think that the best model in this day and age involves a multi
platform environment. There is no reason to limit you r capabilities
by tying into  a single platform when multiple platforms are getting
easier to manage and connect with.

The model that I like is one workstation(pc) with access to Novell,
NT and UNIX. Sharing data accross platforms as needed. Why not. It's
done daily throughout the world. In my environment I can't exist
without UNIX and without Novell (or NT) and I don't have to, why
should you.

---------

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 21:31:15 +0100
From: "Arthur B." <arthur-b@ZEELANDNET.NL>
Subject: Re: THEY want to scrap Netware, please help

Do your job. Which is giving your best to see that you can make the best
out of what you have and are going to get. If they want to change a
perfectly good system into a model computing environment, OK.
I gather they have been warned and didn't listen.  If they didn't ask
your opinion then they are not entitled to it.

If they are still asking before deciding then scout the Internet, call
Novell, etc.  Gather information.  Produce cold figures and help them
see at their level what you see.  If they are passed that then...

Someone should write a migration plan.  You can't do these things in
one day.  A budget must be made free.  A time-table made up which states
each step further into total migration.

Some serious thinking is involved in determining the hardware that NT
runs on.  What new application software must be purchased and at what
time.  Whether or not to install recommended patches.  Determine if
workstations are affected, routers, printers, backup devices, etc.
How accounts will be set up along with policy scripts.  If user desktops
should be locked up and if yes, what and what not and how?  Perhaps the
system needs to be retuned.  And at what point will the NW312 be turned
off?  Could it be neccessary to grant users a course or two?  Or will
it be decided to simply monitor the entire migration path and solve
problems as soon as they arise (eg are detected)?  What you don't want
is too much downtime, unforseen costs and investments in stuff turning
out to be unusable.

Yes, I know.  If you count all that up and what is more to come you see
an end result spelling a world of hurt and streams of money.  But they
need to learn to see that for themselves.

They expect you to be against them.  Probably someone warned them about
that.  What they don't expect is that you give them your best.  Be their
friend if you will.  But, a good friend isn't afraid to allow his
non-listening foolish friend to make mistakes and let him fall flat on
his face.  Only to be there to pick his fallen friend up and respectfully
get him on his feet again.  Until that time making sure their friend
isn't damaged beyond repair.  This process is called learning.  OK, it
will cost some but what is wasted money amongst friends?

Go easy on them.  They (and the rest of the organization) may need you
later...

---------

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:25:31 -0500
From: Bill Sneed <bsneed@AGATE.NET>
Subject: Re: THEY want to scrap Netware, please help

>The model that I like is one workstation(pc) with access to Novell,
>NT and UNIX.  Sharing data accross platforms as needed.  Why not.
>It's done daily throughout the world.  In my environment I can't exist
>without UNIX and without Novell (or NT) and I don't have to, why
>should you.

Bravo...I'm a confirmed MS skeptic but, I hope, a realistist as well.
Financial Aid will need an NT server soon; student labs will thrive with
IntranetWare for years to come; the AS/400 is moving to TCP/IP; Notes &
Domino will be on NT (??), Novell (??), AIX (!!), OS/2 (?!?), OS/400
(@#$?{!); Web site on Linux (now).

It is my sad experience that in an educational setting (not 4 yr.
college) the bean counters and the marginally informed usually get their
way.

As I get older, however, one of my remaining pleasures is to say,
"I told you so."

---------

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:30:38 -0500
From: Burak SADIC <burak@EA.EEE.METU.EDU.TR>
Subject: Re: THEY want to scrap Netware, please help

I think the story is same all around the world. I have the same
problem, actually I have been resisting it for a year.

We have four servers, total 300 users and a really good
architecture. And of course by Novell Netware (4.10)

But it doesn't restrict me to use it, I am writing this mail from my
NT machine working on Novell and 15 minutes later I will open an
x-terminal to work on our Unix-Solaris servers on the same backbone.

The last but not the worst solution is: "I told you" operation after
the change. And after 3 years of my administration experience I am
much more frequently using it (and much more delightedly)

But being honest I am still trying to lead my employers to the
smartest paths.

Other friends in this list (maybe the comrades as we are sometimes in
a combat with users and employers in administration world) give you
some technical details to show to your boss. So I won't repeat them.

In a university as the managers are professors the strategy may
change, so first of all, sometimes it is so hard to convince them
technically (as I am working in university, I suffer it too). Second,
although sometimes the budget calculations, cost calculations work,
sometimes they don't mind it because it is university''s money that
is devoted to that project. But I advise you to convince them
by answering all their needs.

For example if they want NT environments, install NT workstations to
their PC's on Novell.  If they want NT servers install NT servers over
intranetware, Novell supports all these. I think if you answer all their
questions via Novell they can't resist you and also I don't think that
they will be convinced by performance parameters you need to show them.
For example install a standalone NT and show that its printer sharing is
slower than NT over Novell. I hope this helps. And never think you
are alone, story is same all over the world...

---------

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 06:44:06 PST
From: Kevin Miller <kevinm@UHS.BERKELEY.EDU>
Subject: Re[2]: THEY want to scrap Netware, please help

I am always somewhat amazed that management (and some users) often
don't give a second thought about dictating issues of fundamental
importance like network infrastructure.

Do you think that these same people go to their doctor and tell them
how to practice medicine?

We are hired because we have some knowledge and expertise, yet we are
sometimes forced to act in ways that fly in the face of this.

Oh well....

---------

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:28:30 -0500
From: Maryann Sheehan <msheehan@SCTCORP.COM>
Subject: THEY want to scrap Netware, please help

I too, went through the same senario.  I did my homework and sat down with
other "techy" NT people and discussed the pros and cons of moving our
Novell 3.12 servers to NT or to 4.11.  After we listed out the good and
bad, it was clear that for the present time we will stay with Novell and
upgrade to 4.11.  We listed out the cost involved of doing both and that
came out pretty equal.  Also discussed was the impact to the user
community, the network as a whole and the difficulty of the upgrade
process.  In the end Novell came up as the winner.

Although, now I have a new problem.  I am going ahead with the upgrade to
4.11 plan and now my "techy" NT group (basically were all one group) has
turned their nose up at me and doesn't want to have anything to do with
the upgrade (I guess their sore losers - I should have expected this).
The interesting part is, during the whole evaluation, planning what to do
and how to do it phase, the "techy" NT group had no plan and didn't want
to take responsiblility for any NT stuff.  Basically, they want to
implement NT, but don't want to maintain it!

---------

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:03:05 -0700
From: Rodney Hoffman <rhoffman@ORYXPRESS.COM>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: THEY want to scrap Netware, please help

>I am always somewhat amazed <snip>

I, too am amazed that people soooo unaquainted with the network
infrastructure would have such an influence in these matters.

I think that the people (in charge of purse strings) see only the bottom
line.  NT is cheap when it comes to a single server/workstation in terms
of what they pay out front, but they ONLY see that one number, never mind
that someone has to set it up or administer it.  Therein lies the pain.
Therein the real cost rears it's ugly head!!

I HATE Microsoft's tactics and their so-called file-handling.  It's too
clumbersome!  I do however think that the NT Boxes have their place in
this world -- as application servers or workstations; they do that very
well.  And with the push to get NetWare tightly integrated with NT,
things will only get better.

M$ does do certian things better.  We couldn't live without the GUI
interface we all enjoy now (stolen from Xerox early on, but then that's
what M$ does best!) or the programming interfaces used to develop sottware
or as I stated before - NT for App servers and workstations.  M$ seems to
have a good grasp on those sorts of things.

But, let's face it, NetWare does networking and file and print services
better than any one else. Period.  No ifs, ands or buts.   And things
will only get better for Novell.  IntraNetWare is C-2 certified.  Can NT
say that?

As professionals, we know the good about NetWare and the bad about NT.
We need to take our rightful place and lead finance down the path as it
were to let them know the true costs involved with such a switch.

---------

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:08:00 -0500
From: David Weaver <daw@DECT.COM>
Subject: THEY want to scrap Netware, please help

Well of course you have to look at the powerful MS advertising engine.
I know Novell and know it's power, also know NT and it's shortcomings.
It is fine for 5 users w/an admin that is not very difficult to take out
of the box and get it running.  Don't get me wrong, there are instances
for NT, it should be a component in the Novell network.  I'd be curious
to find out what happens, when the decision is out please email me and
the Listserv.

Did you get info on Intranetware?  It is leaps and bounds above 3.11.
Security and management are great w/the coming of NDS there is a single
point of management.  Do you have any say in what OS they do get?

Well hope Gates doesn't steer your organization into the NT trap.
Lets put it this way, I put together a dual P-II 233 w/256 megs and
it ran so so...  Now with NW and a 486/66 w/64 megs will work great.

---------

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:04:33 +1000
From: Brendan Millard <millardb@TCC.QLD.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: THEY want to scrap Netware, please help

In the October Edition of The Cobb Group's Inside Netware, they list 25
points about 'Why IntranetWare is better than Windows NT Server for your
network'.

These points range from Auditing through Disk Quotas, File Migration up
to Scalability and Time Syncronisation.

There is only a little bit of info on each topic but it might help you to
get started.

You might be able to find the info at http://www.cobb.com/inw

If you want a full copy of the article email me

---------

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:23:26 -0600
From: Gregory Carter <gcarter@DIGIVIS.COM>
Subject: Scraping Netware Madness

I think fueling some of this craziness is the rags I get on my desk.

Info World is a good one for example of making really dumb statements.

Most of these people in that magazine couldn't run a real world network
even if you gave them a setup ICON to double click on to do it with!

Every article is a dire prediction for Netware administrators, and NT 5.0
is going to kill NDS.  Would anyone care to GUESS what kind of machine
will be required to run the latest WHALE OS from Micrososft? (ie NT 5.0)

I don't think they make enough SDRAM in the world right now to even
allow it to boot!

:)

I mean, how many have labored through what should be a simple hardware
upgrade to your NT server???

I upgraded my Netware P90 to a P200 and all I had to do was buy a
processor, motherboard, and memory swap them in, and load install to
change the slot and IRQ for my lan card and SCSI card.  Total time,
30 minutes.

Thats all!!

Guess what happens when you make that sort of drastic change to an NT
server?

It took me 6 hours!!!

#1: Reinstall NT
#2. Restore my DATA volumes.
#3. Copy a TREE limb out of my registry for users/printers using regedit.
#4. Reboot.

All in all, sheer hell.  The whole concept of a registry is half baked.
You can't tell me putting everything in a static configuration file like
that is efficient for upgrading, maintaining a server environment that
runs either applications or file and print services for anything but the
most TRIVIAL applications given the restore nightmare you have to go
through just to upgrade the server!!!

Thank god I fired my employer and found a real job now.  All those days
of listening to IS VP's who make WAY to much money talk out of their
[er, behind] about Microsoft's VISION is just a distant memory.

Pardon me, but I think Micrososft should see an Optometrist if it's
visions of the Server Enterprise includes NT 5.0.

It is Netware NDS.  My Macintosh people, my Unix people, and my PC people
all say the same thing when they login everyday to get their work done.

As long as Novell continues to agressively pursue the NO REASON, support
open systems path, NDS will succeed.

And even if it does not, thank goodness the Justice Department is
awakening from a COMA to deal with the situation.

Keep NT as a trivial application server and it will perform wonderfully,
use it for anything serious, or critical and something breaks, your in
deep doodoo.

Most of the time NT runs fine, it is the when it breaks, or you want
to better the hardware is the BIG catch all here.  Netware doesn't have
those VERY significant problems.

That's my experience so far, anyone else have a different experience?

---------

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 13:54:03 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Scraping Netware Madness

>I think fueling some of this craziness is the rags I get on my desk.
	<rest omitted>
---------
	As an individual statement of frustration and despair the message
fits the charter. But I think many of us would not wish to see a thread
started on what is often an emotional basis or just opinions etc, even if
we too feel similar frustration and despair. No one cares whether or not
we as individuals *like* product X. Please save the long rant exchanges
for Usenet NEWS.
	Just the fax ma'am is our motto.
	Joe D.

---------

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:51:15 +1000
From: MR D TANG <tang@STAFF.BGS.QLD.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: THEY want to scrap Netware, please help

The situation in Queensland is slightly different.  For all schools
using Netware with more than 100 user licence, they can continue with
it.  However, for any new server and all those < 100 Netware user
licence, they need to go for NT.  I have been using different network
operating system in the past 10 years (which include Netware, Banyan
Vines, Lantastic, NT 3.51, and 3Com 3+), and I strongly believe
Netware is the best among all.  There are several universities in
Australia that provide CNE as a subject for the undergraduate (RMIT in
Melbourne is one of them).  This proves that the reputation of
Netware is widely recognised by the market as well as the educational
institutes.

---------

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 04:32:26 GMT
From: Ken Wallewein <wallewek@CADVISION.COM>
Subject: Re: THEY want to scrap Netware, please help

I have a somewhat similar problem, but...in my case, I think I must
accept -- nay, agree -- that my Netware system must go.

The third party software that is central to the site's operation is
being upgraded from shared-file to client-server data base
architecture.  I cannot argue with this choice; it makes perfect sense
for modern, dispersed operations.  And even the alternatives we have
looked at are all moving in this direction.  Usually, they are
focussing on Microsoft SQL server. 

Although NetWare is an excellent file and print server, and has an
excellent network administration architecture, I have never liked the
idea of running high-end (e.g. relational, SQL -- Btrieve doesn't
qualify) database server software on a NetWare serve.  The limited
number of product choices, the market, and people I have talked with,
all seem to support my evaluation.

Now, I can't say I'm wildly enthusiastic about MS SQL server, or MS
marketing practices, but I can't argue with the marketing wisdom of
companies that choose to develop their new products for SQL Server.

Which doesn't bode well for NetWare, so far as I can see.

I could discuss the whys, but they're unchangeable, and thus
irrelevant.  As are my feelings about it.

---------

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 23:42:19 -0800
From: Randy Richardson <randy@INTER-CORPORATE.COM>
Subject: High-end SQL on NetWare vs. WinNT:  Why or Why not?

I'm not asking for a debate, but I would like to know why you don't like
the idea of running high-end databases on a Novell OS (aside from new
corporate standards).  Because a Novell OS is so good at serving files
and printers, why wouldn't it be ideal for serving a database?

Since BTrieve SQL doesn't meet the criteria, what about the SyBase and
Oracle high-end SQL client-server database solutions for the NetWare and
IntranetWare platforms that are designed for large-scale operations?

---------

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 06:02:20 -0500
From: Jerry Shenk <JAS@DECT.COM>
Subject: Re: High-end SQL on NetWare vs. WinNT:  Why or Why not?

I'd like an answer for this too...I have a client who is 2 weeks away
from deploying a database for their company on Oracle on NT4.  It's
running rather well.  Somebody from the office with all the windows
read an article stating that Unix is more stable than NT (no kidding!!!)
and now thinks the database should be moved from NT to Unix.  That would
be a perfectly logical question except...there is no Unix knowledge
in-house, the outside application developers (Allenbrook) have about
5% of their clients on Unix and the rest on NT and there is not existing
Unix in the entire company.  If they're gonna to a platform that
Allenbrook doesn't support, why not go with one that's in use in-house
(Netware)?

---------

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:49:53 -0500
From: Danny Williams <danny@CTRUST.COM>
Subject: Re: High-end SQL on NetWare vs. WinNT:  Why or Why not?

Netware has always excelled in providing file and print services. No
one gets files off the server and over the wire faster. In fact, a
couple of years ago one of Oracle's fastest platforms was their NLM.

Netware's does not, however, protect processes running in memory very
well. A crashed DB is more likely to bring down the whole server.
Also, NLMs are hard to write (so I'm told) at all, never mind making
them fast and safe. Perhaps Schmidt's vision of Java-Netware will
change that, but that doesn't help in the here-and-now.

Our db vendor (Progress) recently dropped the NLM product from
further development, so we had to install an NT server for the
databases. Primary file and print and  fax and backup and email (etc)
are still on the Netware server. Some brief testing of our databases
on the same hardware with the NLM vs NT found they were within a few
percentage points of each other. Progess tells me, though, that
limited tuning options under netware (a result of how NW handles
memory) make it less scalable, in terms of db size AND number of
users, for their product than NT.

Anyway, do a little research and Q&A with Oracle and see what they
say...

---------

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:59:11 -0700
From: Rodney Hoffman <rhoffman@ORYXPRESS.COM>
Subject: Re: THEY want to scrap Netware, please help

>I have a somewhat similar problem, but...in my case, I think I must
>accept -- nay, agree -- that my Netware system must go.
>
>The third party software that is central to the site's operation is
>being upgraded from shared-file to client-server data base
>architecture.  I cannot argue with this choice; it makes perfect sense
>for modern, dispersed operations.  And even the alternatives we have
>looked at are all moving in this direction.  Usually, they are
>focussing on Microsoft SQL server.

I agree that NT does the modem thing better.  Take a look at
http://www.citrix.com.  This system is based on NT 3.51.  They have
connectivity to NetWare as well as other systems.  And you don't have to
have a Windows-based system to connect to it.  They have a DOS client for
Citrix.

>Although NetWare is an excellent file and print server, and has an
>excellent network administration architecture, I have never liked the
>idea of running high-end (e.g. relational, SQL -- Btrieve doesn't
>qualify) database server software on a NetWare serve.  The limited
>number of product choices, the market, and people I have talked with,
>all seem to support my evaluation.

Have you taken a look at Oracle?  I've heard that it's quite good.

>Now, I can't say I'm wildly enthusiastic about MS SQL server, or MS
>marketing practices, but I can't argue with the marketing wisdom of
>companies that choose to develop their new products for SQL Server.
>
>Which doesn't bode well for NetWare, so far as I can see.
>
>I could discuss the whys, but they're unchangeable, and thus
>irrelevant.  As are my feelings about it.

NT is good - nay, excellent at applications such as those you've described.

I've heard rumors that NetWare will be able to manage the NT domains
through NDS (they may even have a tighter solution than that, but I
can't say for sure) in the near future, so don't divest all NetWare
for NT.

---------

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:39:20 -0800
From: Michael Hoelscher <mhoelsch@CTC.CTC.EDU>
Subject: Re: THEY want to scrap Netware, please help

Put together a conversion cost model -- including additional hardware,
software, support and user training [unless like us, that's the first
budgeted item to be unfunded ;<)], workstation conversion, etc. -- and
present it to them as "funding in advance required".   I suspect THAT
will get their attention.  :<)

You might also ask the impolitic question:  If NT is the "thing",
why does Novell still have 60% market share?   Novell also has some
papers on major organizations that have gone from Novell to NT, and
back to Novell.

You might also research the trades to find some of the more recent, and
more sensible, articles that have emphasized trashing your existing
investment in NOS "just because it's MS" doesn't make sense.

You might also ask the CIS folks to get involved and discuss the concept
of "open systems" and "interoperability".

I would couch my opinions in terms most meaningful to the particular
"non-technical" folks who are stumping NT.

---------

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:18:52 -0800
From: Brandon Fouts <BrandonF@WSHA.ORG>
Subject: Novell vs NT or File Server vs Application Server?

>The third party software that is central to the site's
>operation is being upgraded from shared-file to client-server
>data base architecture.  I cannot argue with this choice; it
>makes perfect sense for modern, dispersed operations.
>And even the alternatives we have looked at are all moving
>in this direction.  Usually, they are focussing on Microsoft
>SQL server.

The basic power of networks was always the distributed
nature of using the desktop CPU - not the servers CPU.
Let's see 10 workstations doing reports from a file server, or
10 clients having the Application Server do all the work - can
you figure which is faster? How about the speed of Main
Frame or Mini Computer? Doesn't it seem that Main Frames
do the fastest client server? (since Main Frame only work
with data and no graphics)

>Although NetWare is an excellent file and print server, and
>has an excellent network administration architecture, I have
>never liked the idea of running high-end (e.g. relational, SQL
>-- Btrieve doesn't qualify) database server software on a
>NetWare serve.

So NetWare is excellent, and you want to try something
else? Did you consider Oracle ?

>The limited number of product choices, ...

Do you mean that NT only works with MS SQL ?

>Now, I can't say I'm wildly enthusiastic about MS SQL
>server but I can't argue with the marketing wisdom of
>companies that choose to develop their new products for
>SQL Server.

Reports I've read show Oracle far outperforms MS SQL.
And I also have not SEEN a good SQL system. Have you
found one? Read all the promises, SQL sounds great, I think.
I have discovered that ACCESS is NOT a good network
product, far too slow. Access is OK for single user.

I would want to see an actual installation, before I spent any
significate amount of $ or time with ANY info system product
HardWare or Software. Have you seen productivity gains
going to Windows 95/NT3,4 ? all I see is slower boot up
times. So I have held off $10,000 buying Windows upgrades.
I wonder if NT5 or Windows98 will be worth it.

>I could discuss the whys, but they're unchangeable, and
>thus irrelevant.  As are my feelings about it.

Don't discuss the whys, find out what the whys are and
compare the possible solutions. Sometime NT, sometimes
NetWare, sometimes UNIX, etc...

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:43:04 -0700
From: Rodney Hoffman <rhoffman@ORYXPRESS.COM>
Subject: Re: RFI: Intranetware v NT

>I have been charged with writing up a proposal for an Intranet
>server with WWW capabilities, user FTP (for publishing pages into the
>server) and minimal licence requirements.
>
>As I don't have access to NT or Intranetware, I am looking for
>pointers to good resources that can either do a comparison of the two
>or can provide some detail of the features and capabilities of each.
>
>I would also like personal opinions of the relative merits. And any
>information from anyone who has gone through this process themself.

Having just gone through Intranet Professional Boot Camp at the local
NetWare User's Conference here in Phoenix and am now running IIS 3.0, I
think I've seen both sides of the coin.

I haven't done a side-by-side comparison yet, but... If it's functionality
you need, I believe the web server included with IntraNetWare can fill the
bill nicely.

-  It's easy to install.  I saw one installed and up and running in about
ten minutes.  This included the installation of the TCP/IP protocol stack.
- You don't need the FTP portion if publishing is your only application.
You'll publish to an existing drive on the NetWare server.
- NetWare is more secure than anything available today
- The web server is loads faster in the number of hits per minute.

Here's a press release page I found on the subject...

	http://www.novell.com/press/archive/1995/10/pr95252.html

That'd be more valuable to you than any personal opinions I could offer.
Search http:://www.novell.com for "NetWare Web Server" too.

---------

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:43:52 -0600
From: Lawrence Sobilo <lsobilo@WHITINGCORP.COM>
Subject: Re: RFI: Intranetware v NT -Reply

We run multiple NW 4.11 servers, one NT, and 1 HP-UX. For our web
server we choose Linux.  Started with Caldera, now use Red Hat.

We wanted to use Novell's web server. At the time, it did not support
virtual domains (sometimes called IP aliasing). A later release
supported multiple domains. However, each required a separate NIC,
which is not the solution we wanted. The current release may have
true support for multiple domains.

If you have this requirement, check it out.

As for the Linux solution, we have no problems or regrets. Other Unix
solutions had high cost based upon # users. We paid about $100 for the
Linux solution, unlimited users.

---------

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:32:03 +0100
From: "Arthur B." <arthur-b@ZEELANDNET.NL>
Subject: Re: Intranetware v NT

>I have been charged with writing up a proposal for an Intranet
>server with WWW capabilities, user FTP (for publishing pages into the
>server) and minimal licence requirements.
>
>As I don't have access to NT or Intranetware, I am looking for
>pointers to good resources that can either do a comparison of the two
>or can provide some detail of the features and capabilities of each.
>
>I would also like personal opinions of the relative merits. And any
>information from anyone who has gone through this process themself.

The best answer to your question is to put your question into practise.

Meaning creating a test environment and test both products as you have
never tested a product before. This will consume time and some resources
but afterwards you'll have answered your questions.  For all you know
the answer is within a mixed environment. Maybe even Unix. Trial "full
product" CD's allow you to determine your needs yourself. And have a
good idea about how to install and maintain your product of choice in
the short and long run. And leave you with enough spares and test
equipment to handle almost any disaster and/or future 'let us put it to
the test' desires and/or 'how to train our staff to make them more
effective' problems.  Furthermore, in a test environment you can put
questions into practise that no salesman, white paper nor advertisement
can give an answer too.

Best of all, whatever the outcome, you'll know it's what works for you.
You can even show unconvinced decision makers and administrators that it
works.  Perhaps even let them 'put it to the test' and learn a thing or
two in the process.

The only things left to debate then are the things that weren't put to the
test.  If that becomes the problem simply start the process by giving two
departments (or divide a department into two seperated testgroups) one of
the products each and leave the rest as they are. Swap environments after
some months if you dare. Time will give you the answer then. Along with
everybody then knowing what worked best for them.

If you move slowly you can back up every statement with fact and keep
costs in hand.  Rush forward and the aftermath of that action may overtake
you. Usually because of so called 'hidden costs', 'soft costs' or
'unforseen costs'.

So, no, I'll not share my experiences with you.
They might lead you away from what works best in your case.

Every company is unique and so are its demands.
What's a plus for one can be a minus for another.

----------

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 10:03:31 -0800
From: Randy Richardson <randy@INTER-CORPORATE.COM>
Subject: Re: RFI: Intranetware v NT -Reply

>We run multiple NW 4.11 servers, one NT, and 1 HP-UX. For our web server
>we choose Linux.  Started with Caldera, now use Red Hat.
>
>We wanted to use Novell's web server. At the time, it did not support
>virtual domains (sometimes called IP aliasing). A later release supported
>multiple domains. However, each required a separate NIC, which is not
>the solution we wanted. The current release may have true support for
>multiple domains.

	Novell Web Server 3.0 supports multiple domains.  Only one IP address is
required, and no aliases need to be set up.  Each domain services files in
different directories.  Example:

	Domain name                     HTML files
	-----------------------------------------------------------
	www.mydomain.com                SYS:WEB/MYDOMAIN/DOCS/
	www.domain2.com         SYS:WEB/DOMAIN2/DOCS/
	www.otherdomain.ca              SYS:WEB/OTHERDOM/DOCS/
	support.non-profit.org  SYS:WEB/SUPPORT/DOCS/

>If you have this requirement, check it out.

	I'm using Novell Web Server 3.0, and I'm serving multiple domains on one
NIC with one IP address.  The sites are accessible internally and over the
internet, and never get mixed up.

>As for the Linux solution, we have nor problems or regrets. Other Unix
>solutions had high cost based upon # users. We paid about $100 for the
>Linux solution, unlimited users.

	On my server, Novell Web Server 3.0 has never crashed, delayed, corrupted
data, or conflict with service packs (right up to IWSP4a, the current
version at this time).  LCGI and RCGI work like a charm, and Perl5 scripts
are lightning fast.

	Novell Web Server 3.0 is free for owners of IntranetWare 4.11, and
integrates into NDS.  It supports personal web pages for users in the NDS
tree as "/~username/" at the tail end of the URL (the HTML files are
located in the "/PUBLIC.WWW/" subdirectory under the user's home directory).

	There is no concurrent user limit that I'm aware of.  The idea behind a
web server is to grant public access to the content of your pages to as
many users as possible.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:59:52 +1000
From: Lester Bennett <Lester.Bennett@TREASURY.QLD.GOV.AU>
Subject: Re: THEY want to scrap Netware, please help

>...my Netware system must go.
>
>The third party software that is central to the site's operation is
>being upgraded from shared-file to client-server data base
>architecture.  I cannot argue with this choice; it makes perfect sense
>for modern, dispersed operations.  And even the alternatives we have
>looked at are all moving in this direction.  Usually, they are
>focussing on Microsoft SQL server.
>
>Although NetWare is an excellent file and print server, and has an
>excellent network administration architecture, I have never liked the
>idea of running high-end (e.g. relational, SQL -- Btrieve doesn't
>qualify) database server software on a NetWare server.  The limited
>number of product choices, the market, and people I have talked with,
>all seem to support my evaluation.
>
>Now, I can't say I'm wildly enthusiastic about MS SQL server, or MS
>marketing practices, but I can't argue with the marketing wisdom of
>companies that choose to develop their new products for SQL Server.
>
>Which doesn't bode well for NetWare, so far as I can see.

Why not just add an NT server to your current Netware network to use SQL
Server.  From my experience, if you go all NT your going to end up with
more servers and less functionality at a much higher cost (both initial
hardware outlay and on going maintenance costs) than  you have now just
to get access to a SQL server.

We currently have a NetWare network (16 servers 4.11, 3.12, 3.11 and 600
plus users) plus two NT servers for Lotus Notes.  The NetWare servers
have 486Dx-100 processors with 128MB RAM and work all day every day with
no ABENDS.

The NT servers both have Dual Pentium Pro 200s with 512MB RAM just to run
Notes and they fall over once or twice a day.  The NT Administrator can't
get SMS running on them without them crashing and is buying another server
just to run SMS which of course uses SQL server.

I would like to see them upgrade the entire network to 4.11 and NDS and
use Managewise and NAL but I'm only a contractor here (for contractor
read the ones that do all the work) and not in a position to make
formal recommendations or decisions.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:36:21 +0100
From: "Arthur B." <arthur-b@ZEELANDNET.NL>
Subject: Re: Intranetware v NT

>I have been charged with writing up a proposal for an Intranet
>server with WWW capabilities, user FTP (for publishing pages into the
>server) and minimal licence requirements.
>
>As I don't have access to NT or Intranetware, I am looking for
>pointers to good resources that can either do a comparison of the two
>or can provide some detail of the features and capabilities of each.
>
>I would also like personal opinions of the relative merits. And any
>information from anyone who has gone through this process themself.

The best answer to your question is to put your question into practise.

Meaning creating a test environment and test both products as you have
never tested a product before. This will consume time and some resources
but afterwards you'll have answered your questions.  For all you know the
answer is within a mixed environment. Maybe even Unix. Trial "full product"
CD's allow you to determine your needs yourself. And have a good idea about
how to install and maintain your product of choice in the short and long
run. And leave you with enough spares and test equipment to handle almost
any disaster and/or future 'let us put it to the test' desires and/or 'how
to train our staff to make them more effective' problems.

Furthermore, in a test environment you can put questions into practise that no
salesman, white paper nor advertisement can give an answer too.

Best of all, whatever the outcome, you'll know it's what works for you.
You can even show unconvinced decision makers and administrators that it
works. Perhaps even let them 'put it to the test' and learn a thing or
two in the process.

The only things left to debate then are the things that weren't put to the
test.

If that becomes the problem simply start the process by giving two
departments (or divide a department into two seperated testgroups) one
of the products each and leave the rest as they are. Swap environments
after some months if you dare. Time will give you the answer then.
Along with everybody then knowing what worked best for them.

If you move slowly you can back up every statement with fact and keep
costs in hand. Rush forward and the aftermath of that action may overtake
you. Usually because of so called 'hidden costs', 'soft costs' or
'unforseen costs'.

So, no, I'll not share my experiences with you.
They might lead you away from what works best in your case.

Every company is unique and so are its demands.
What's a plus for one can be a minus for another.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 01:41:21 +0100
From: "Arthur B." <arthur-b@ZEELANDNET.NL>
Subject: NDS for NT factbook

Or...

Why NT alone is only used by people that do not understand WANs.

   http://www.novell.com/products/nds/nds4nt/wpnds.html

It seems Novell is learning how to react to the Microsoft marketing
engine.

---------

Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 23:58:52 +0000
From: Randy Richardson <randy@INTER-CORPORATE.COM>
Subject: Re: NDS for NT factbook

>Or...
>
>Why NT alone is only used by people that do not understand WANs.
>
>   http://www.novell.com/products/nds/nds4nt/wpnds.html
>
>It seems Novell is learning how to react to the Microsoft marketing
>engine.

Learning?  It seems to me that Microsoft learned marketing skills
from Novell.  Remember the days of NetWare 2.x, LANtastic, and Banyan
Vines?

Many companies that have been using Novell software are still using
it.  Unix and/or Windows NT is often mixed in many of these
environments because some server-based applications require a
specific platform.  Read those market share reports carefully because
many don't differentiate between NT Server and NT Workstation (many
sites that use NT Workstation to login to Novell networks).

The big difference lies in how you think.  Do you think "big" (NDS,
WAN, scalability, versatility, long term costs, reliability), or do
you think "small" (single server, LAN, fun to use, compatibility,
short term costs, bleeding edge)?

---------

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 22:56:20 +0100
From: "Arthur B." <arthur-b@ZEELANDNET.NL>
Subject: Re: NDS for NT factbook

>>Or...
>>
>>Why NT alone is only used by people that do not understand WANs.
>>http://www.novell.com/products/nds/nds4nt/wpnds.html
>>
>>It seems Novell is learning how to react to the Microsoft marketing
>>engine.
>
>Learning?  It seems to me that Microsoft learned marketing skills
>from Novell.  Remember the days of NetWare 2.x, LANtastic, and Banyan
>Vines?

You mean the days of IBM and VAX/VMS? I do.

Wasn't that around the time that Microsoft hit the market with a
graphical Excel that had a printer spooler? Turned out there was a need
for it. As with Windows. And the introduction of two major version
releases within a year. Everyone wanted more, bigger, better. Endusers
and managers were screaming they could only do their job *if* they got
the latest version of this or that. Worktime ended, showtime started.

Valid concerns from MIS were pushed aside.  The crowd was getting hungry
and MIS with their tech speak was in the way.  And Microsoft
understood... perhaps MIS calls the shots, but they didn't absolutly
control the cash flow.  In the face-off between endusers and MIS the
latter was ignored because nobody understood their compliants.  And
that's what Microsoft has been doing all along.  Sucking up the ones
that control the cash flow and showing no concerns for anyone else.

All Microsoft does is fulfilling the (emotional) needs of those that
are willing and able to pay for it.  It's the old Hollywood story.
Give me your money and I'll make you a star.

But I'm afraid you're taking my point the wrong way.

It could be just me but it was the first time I saw a report from
Novell that didn't contain tech info only.  I mean at least some
managers could read *and* understand it.  And it puts facts against
Microsoft statements one-by-one.  And it even contains humor.

>Many companies that have been using Novell software are still using
>it.  Unix and/or Windows NT is often mixed in many of these
>environments because some server-based applications require a
>specific platform.  Read those market share reports carefully because
>many don't differentiate between NT Server and NT Workstation (many
>sites that use NT Workstation to login to Novell networks).

I'm not sure what you're getting to here.

>The big difference lies in how you think.  Do you think "big"
(NDS, WAN, scalability, versatility, long term costs, reliability),
>or do you think "small" (single server, LAN, fun to use, compatibility,
>short term costs, bleeding edge)?

My point is to see it from the (emotional) view of the ones that
control the cash flow.

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:44:20 -0500
From: John Feldbauer <feldbaue@ATLANTIC.EDU>
Subject: Re: supporting dual NetWare & NT 4.0 environment

>I would love to know if there are any good books/comprehensive ref docs
>etc on what are the major differences in a NetWare -Vs- NT environment
>{command structures functions etc}.

I just got this book about 2 weeks ago.  I haven't dug into it yet, but
here is the link. http://www.ora.com/catalog/netware/

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:24:11 +0000
From: Randy Richardson <randy@INTER-CORPORATE.COM>
Subject: Re: supporting dual NetWare & NT 4.0 environment

>I would love to know if there are any good books/comprehensive ref
>docs etc on what are the major differences in a NetWare -Vs- NT
>environment {command structures functions etc}.

See the following URL:

	http://www.novell.com/products/nds/nds4nt/wpnds.html

This one will explain the differences between NDS and NT Domains.

You may also want to look into NDS for NT to simplify management and
remove the possibility of workstation headaches.

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

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:21:27 +0000
From: Randy Richardson <randy@INTER-CORPORATE.COM>
Subject: Re: SDK problem, and Security issue

>>The following URL will lead you to information about making your
>>network C2 redbook compliant:
>>
>>	http://support.novell.com/cgi-bin/search/tidfinder.cgi?2932708
>>
>>Have you notified Novell about the hacking binaries that you've
>>found?
>
>My work is a search for all known info out there (internet), and to put it
>on the paper... I got many products to do the same..., but I'm especially
>interested in Novell, cause it's, I think, one of the best (in security)
>and it's objects directory structure seems to be the one (until NT5 :).

What do you mean "until NT5?"  You better take a look at the
following URL as soon as possible:

	http://www.novell.com/products/nds/nds4nt/wpnds.html

This document will compare NDS with NT 4 (domains) and NT 5 (MAD -
Microsoft Active Directory).

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

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 23:36:30 -0700
From: Pete Condon <pcondon@PSN.NET>
Subject: Re: M$ Services For Netware

http://www.novell.com/products/nds/nds4nt/wpnds.html#deploying

Some interesting reading to say the least.

I know of a company (division) that has decided to migrate to NT but
will not allow a modem / dial up on that box because of the lack of
security - go figure, and write the conclusion for yourself.  This does
not even consider the approximate 2x cost per seat vs NW.

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 19:17:02 -0600
From: Mark Rogowski <markrog@MB.SYMPATICO.CA>
Subject: NT vs NW

>In NT, I've been successful using a share to get the personal directory
>to map using Net Use //servername/foldername, but have run into two
>problems:
>
>1. Can't map to subdirectories, for example
>>(//servername/userfolders/foldername), meaning I have to create
>individual shares to each user's folder; and
>
>2. Can't use a %username% in the login script to get automatic
>mappings for each user (net use n: //servername/%username%)

Guess what...it can't be done!  Don't beat your head against the wall
trying to figure out why...

The command that is suppose to work is:

	net use <drive_letter>: \\server /home

Major bug in NT.  You can create individual shares to each user's home
directory at the risk of losing all of your system resouces, or you can
create one share to the \users directory and then specify the rights to
each directory for that specific user.  Depending on how many users you
have, this could take a lonnnng time...

Watched one man create user directories for nearly 600 users.  It took
him three days.

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:20:46 -0800
From: Anthony Baratta <Anthony@BARATTA.COM>
Subject: Re: FW: Drive mappings -- converting from NetWare to NT 4.0

>Further to this thread I would love to know if there are any good
>books/comprehensive ref docs etc on what is involved in a NW to NT
>conversion.
>
>I will be finding myself in the very dilemma that is cited by Joe very soon
>& I'd like to not find out about conversion issues  and operating
>differences between NW & WinNT the hard way.

O'Reilly has a GREAT book called  WinNT 4.0 for Netware Administrators.

http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/netware/

---------

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 08:43:22 +0100
From: Rainer Scheppelmann <RS@MERLIN.HB.UUNET.DE>
Subject: Re: FW: supporting dual NetWare & NT 4.0 environment

Two excellent books - as often, from O'Reilly - will help you getting
the most out of NT (that's not too much, but not for the books'
fault):

'Windows NT Server 4.0 for NetWare Administrators' by Robert B.
Thompson (ISBN 1-56592-280-8)

Besides that it does not cover NDS for NT (a must have, but released
after the book) and that it does not include IntraNetware with the
introductory feature comparison charts (otherwise one might ask 'why
do I need NT anyway?'), the book is perfect for those who know what
they are doing with Netware and now are forced to deal with NT by
some adverse circumstances.

'Windows NT In A Nutshell' by Eric Pearce (ISBN 1-56592-251-4)

A quick reference, helps finding features and functions in spite of
the user interface, comprehensively lists commands which belong
together but are scattered about, etc.

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 19:01:17 -0700
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: MS won't support NT with NDS

>Some interesting reading from Wired.com:
>http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/9739.html
>http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/comparisons/ndsfornt2.asp?A=2&B=12
>http://www.novell.com/lead_stories/98/jan16/bridge.html
>
>Basically, MS has stated a policy that if you are using NDS for NT, you
>have broken the OS, and they can no longer support you for some problems.
>Most interesting to me was their claim that NDS for NT replaced 2 or three
>DLL files (depending which part you read), when in only replaced one.  MS
>also says that NDS for NT will break NT's C2 security.  Last I knew, NT
>couldn't have C2 security if a network card is installed.
---------
	This particular dustup flared about a week ago with a particularly
unpleasant web article by Microsoft (www.microsoft.com/ntserver/comparison/
nondsfornt.asp). Novell replied on their web page, as we can see by visiting
it. The original MS article seems to have vanished and what's left is some
much outdated FUD.
	The points of interest seem to be NDS4NT is an exceptionally clean
replacment for NT SAM (sec access man) which puts NT authentication and
management into NDS, and which can be cleanly undone later. Thus managment
of NT domains becomes one (NDS) point of management. Only one DLL is replaced,
not two or three. And it works with NT 5 beta. That's very neat work, indeed.
Novell's web material explains the technology.
	On security ratings. INW 4.11 has C2 capability rating on the network.
As I recall, NT 4 has C2 rating only if no floppy drive and no lan adapter
are present. Given our previous discussion on ways bad guys can subvert NT
both components do seem to be open invitations. Hopefully NT 5 will plug the
holes, but that will need to be demonstrated.
	MS' reaction was to declare NT customers are out of luck: no support
from MS if they use NDS4NT. Needless to say, this is not a pleasant tactic.
Compare this with Novell's statements about customer support and folks moving
from one vendor to another.
	Joe D.

----------

Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 19:48:00 -0700
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: C2 rating, Novell's certificate

	I have placed a scanned image of Novell's NetWare 4 C2 rating
certificate in directory misc on netlab2.usu.edu, mirrored to directory
pub/mirror/misc on netlab1.usu.edu. It is file C2CERT.BMP, a Windows
bitmap item suitable for framing and using as NT wallpaper.
	Joe D.

---------

Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 19:33:47 +0000
From: Randy Richardson <randy@INTER-CORPORATE.COM>
Subject: Re: MS won't support NT with NDS

C2 red book rating means that a network is connected.

C2 orange book rating means that the system is stand alone.

I've seen some articles somewhere on the internet that if you
install any service pack on NT server, that the C2 orange book rating
gets invalidated.  Does anyone know any URLs pointing to these
documents?

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 11:32:34 +0200
From: Mike Glassman - Admin <admin@IAA.GOV.IL>
Subject: Re: MS won't support NT with NDS

Not sure about the URL's, but am sure about the following.

NT is Per-Site C2 certified. Basically this means that in order for an
NT server installation to be certified, it needs to be tested PER SITE
!!! So if you get certified in one site/org/office and move the
certified server to another, you automatically negate the C2 and lose
certification.

Novell is OS C2 certified...a HUGE difference I think.

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 09:32:46 +0000
From: Randy Richardson <randy@INTER-CORPORATE.COM>
Subject: Re: MS won't support NT with NDS

I found a URL about this on a site called "NT LIES:"

	http://www4.zdnet.com/pccomp/features/fea0797/nt/sub4.html

I'll quote a few parts of it here:

   "Microsoft chose to submit NT 3.5 for C2 approval (NT 4.0
    hasn't been tested yet) using the NSA's "Orange Book"
    testing procedures instead of the more stringent "Red Book."

   "Would you install a copy of NT Server without connecting
    it to another computer? Of course not. But as soon as you
    do, you lose the C2 rating."

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 20:25:13 -0800
From: Floyd Maxwell <floyd@DIRECT.CA>
Subject: Re: Missing directories.

>We are using NT4 Workstations, with the latest Novell client, on
>a mixed network of NW3.11, NW3.12, NW4.11 and NT4.0 servers.
>
>Our problem is that we can not see some sub-directories in some
>applications.  These are shared data directories and they can't
>be seen in Word6, WordPerfect6.1 or Excel5 but they can be seen
>in Lotus 1-2-3 R5 and Explorer. In the apps where it can't be
>seen, if the user types in the full path the contents of that
>directory can then be seen.  It is not to do with the path length
>as they can see sub-directories in much longer paths without the
>problem. It only occurs on the NT4 Workstations.  Win3.1 and Win95
>are OK. I suspect it is a problem with a dll used by all three
>apps to open files.

I have found under WinNT v4 that files that are saved in  lowercase
letters will not be seen by Word 5.0 for DOS.  When I rename them to
UPPERCASE letters then Word can see them fine, and that trying to
do a "Transfer | Load | F1" (file list) in a directory containing
long filenames crashes Word 5.0 for DOS...but individual files can
be loaded if you type the file name explicitly.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 15:09:23 -0800
From: Brandon Fouts <BrandonF@WSHA.ORG>
Subject: NT & Netware

NT Integration with Novell:

	http://www.novell.com/intranetware/ntint

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

Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 10:33:38 -0500
From: CHENGD1 <CHENGD1@WESTAT.COM>
Subject: NDS for NT - brief review

I installed NDS for NT a couple days ago and thought I'd give some quick
impressions of the product.  (I hope this is within the purview of the list - if
not, I apologize.)

I downloaded the eval version from the Novell website.  I'm testing it on one
tree and one domain.  It was very easy to install.  You install it on your NT
PDC first, and during the installation it installs the Netware client, goes out
to your tree, and modifies the schema.  NDS for NT must be installed on every
domain controller in your domain.  The Netware client changes the NT server
logon screen, of course - you get the Novell splash screen and you have the
choice to login to a Netware network.

The NT domain becomes a container object in the tree, and the NT groups and
computers become NT group objects and computer objects within the container.
The NT domain container is created at the root level.  I don't remember if I was
given a chance to place it at a different level, but I don't think this can be
done anyway (need to check the docs on that).

The NT users become regular user objects and you can place them wherever you
want them in the tree.  You assign users to domains via the Domain Access button
on the Properties dialog box.  You can move users from one domain to another via
the Domain Access screen.  NT administrators know that this is a big plus over
NT's delete/recreate method in User Manager.

You can create a user object for NDS and NT at the same time, or create it for
NDS only and then assign it to an NT domain later.  NT user profile and logon
script directory paths are manageable from the user Properties dialog box.

You can create NT global and local groups and NT computer names in the NT
container.  All user and group changes made through NDS are replicated into the
NT domain.  Any changes made through User Manager for Domains are replicated up
into NDS.  Novell says they did not change the format of the SAM database, so
you can uninstall NDS for NT and your SAM database will be intact (I haven't
tested that part yet.)

I am impressed with this product.  The eval copy times out May 31, 1998.  Feel
free to email me if you have specific questions.

---------

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 08:59:32 -0500
From: Mary Beth Stuenkel <maryb@UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: NDS for NT - brief review

>Sorry, what I meant here was:  if you run NT Domains, moving a user
>is a pain from domain to domain.  You must delete, then recreate the
>user and ALL rights et al.
>
>What I was hoping you could do instead was, have NDS for NT, move
>the user object while in DS (or change its domain membership, depending
>on how the domain object is defined), and effectivly you have moved an
>NT user from domain to another easily, and if at  later date you backed
>out of NDS for Nt, then you still have the user properly moved.

Good idea about using NDS for NT but the way the redirector works (NDS for
NT is simply a redirector, works much like drive mapping or printing),
once the redirector DLL replaces MS's original, the information is never
written to the DC's SAM.  Instead the directory information is redirected
to NDS.  Therefore, uninstalling NDS for NT leaves the NT DCs with the SAM
they had before installing NDS for NT.

I had heard there was a utility for uninstalling NDS for NT that would
synchronize the DC's SAM with what NDS has accumulated, but I haven't
actually seen it.  Maybe you could use the Novell Administrator for
Windows NT?

---------

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 08:20:43 -0600
From: Erika Shea <Michael_C._Roth@OXY.COM>
Subject: Re[2]: NDS for NT - brief review

After you install NDS for NT there is an icon created called Domain
Object Wizard.  When you run this program, it will uninstall NDS for
NT and it gives you the choice of transferring all the info from NDS
or not depending on what your needs are.

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 17:17:19 +0000
From: Randy Richardson <randy@INTER-CORPORATE.COM>
Subject: Re: client32 ----why?

>We at work are in the midst of an Netware Vs. NT battle.  There are
>about 20 Netware servers (all 4.11) & approx. 5 NT4 servers
>(Intranet,SQL,Exchange).  98% of our clients are Win95 machines with
>the usual Office applications, c:cMail (for the present) & various
>programming applications.
>
>Originally they were configured with MSNDS but with time we are trying
>to introduce Managewise , Bordermanager , NAL & a networked HP scanner
>that also needs Client32.  The problem is 2-fold:
>
>1. I need a detailed list of reasons why C32 is better for both the
>user as well as the admins.

Some reasons:
	- C2 redbook security
	- Auto re-connect
	- NDS for NT simplifies user access to all network resources
	- Centralized management of all network resources
	- http://www.novell.com/products/nds/nds4nt/wpnds.html

Make sure your workstations:
	- Don't have viruses
	- Have enough RAM (at least 16 MBs, preferrably 32 MBs)
	- Have enough free disk space (for the swap file)
	- Running Windows 95 B (a.k.a. "OSR2")
	- Running Novell's Client32 v2.20
	- Have the latest BIOS installed

Make sure your servers are running with the latest Novell patches.

>2. We have at this point in time a FORE ATM backbone (servers & hubs
>attached to it).  Unfortunately it is not as stable as it should be
>(unexplainable freezes).  The problem is that while the Microsoft
>clients (for Netware) do not react to these freezes, the C32 machines
>immediately hang &/or notify of lost connections to the file/print
>(Netware) servers.

The Microsoft clients probably aren't paying any attention to what's
going on.  This can lead to trouble, since it's more difficult to
find a problem when no red flags are waving about.

Your main problem is configuration.

1.) Your clients need to be configured to connect to the local
servers, and this needs to be tested by physically disconnecting the
backbone (don't do this during business hours).  Doing this can also
help reduce the amount of backbone traffinc on your WAN.

2.) Is your NDS tree set up with the appropriate replicas?

You also need to find out why the WAN keeps going down.  Is there
too much traffic?  What about changing to NLSP to at least reduce
RIP/SAP traffic?

>I have reached the point that I wish that I could implement
>BMNGR,M-wise & NAL wish moving users over to C32.

After resolving the server and backbone issues, work on one client
at a time until everything is stable.  Look for hardware and software
conflicts in a way that only a perfectionist does.  Every little
problem must be fixed (this includes the disabled sound card where
the user doesn't care about sound - remove it).  After you've setup 5
or 6 workstations successfully, you can probably just convert the
rest of the company one department at a time.

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

Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:32:31 -0700
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Off Topic: Opinions

>* Fourth problem is when I'm offering and designing a project: First step
>is design a general solution, then at the moment of implementation I
>recommend Novell for the job, but the CIO of the company always say to me:
>Forget it, I WANT NT. How could I earn living fighting this mind-share M$
>has over my potentials clients?.

	Tell him about micro-management and failure to use his technical
resources and letting his ego (and his company) be sold for nothing. To
borrow a phrase from an excellent technical-management-lessons-learned
book, "the data will set you free". The meaning is let facts be facts,
and separate them from emotion and opinion.

>Are we alone in this scenario, or is the same situation around the world?
>I'm willing to hear solutions, or if you want to share tips or stories go
>ahead. BTW, I've forced for this situation to study Microsoft.

	No. There are similar stories from elsewhere. The gist of them
are Novell's sales organization is not aggressive and outgoing, and instead
waits for customers to contact it. Stealth marketing is the label placed on
this approach. The story has been true for years and everyone in the industry
knows it.
	Your complaint will do no good coming to this list. Instead have
important people write directly to Eric Schmidt of Novell, or phone him.
A government minister will get attention.
	Joe D.

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

Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 23:19:23 -0800
From: Randy Richardson <randy@INTER-CORPORATE.COM>
Subject: Re: NT and Novell

>IntraNetWare and NT Workstation Manager - makes life
>simple - yet one of the many many reasons to upgrade to
>4.11. I suggest checking Novell web site on both Workstation
>Manager & 4.11 upgrade - lots of useful information.
>
>I won't want to roll out NT4 workstation without Workstation
>Manager. Now I'm ready to move our office computers from
>Win 3.x (skip windows95 headaches) directly to NT4
>workstation. Who would have guessed Novell gave me the
>reasons to upgrade Windows?
>
>Good Luck, with planning your future installations.
>(yes, planning can be useful...testing too)
>
>From:    "Jerry K. Fluharty, Jr." <esfluhj@ES.CC.VA.US>
>
>Pardon the ignorance, but I a new to NT.  I just installed NT
>4.0 on my office computer that is attached to a Netware 3.12
>Lan.  I am ahaving trouble configuring NT to recognize the
>LAN connection.  Ihave done LAN connections for DOS,
>WIN31 and WIN95.  I don't see where NT asks for the server
>preferences like 95 does.

Many organizations use Novell for the servers (they like the
performance, C2 security, stability, cross-platform support, etc.,
etc.), and run NT Workstation on most (if not all) the
workstations.

Complimented by NAL, along with all the other great things that
simplify network administration, many of these organizations feel
they have an edge over the competition because they can focus more
resources on the success of their business.

Novell reduces administration hours in a big way.  If you have
multiple NT servers sharing one domain, "Admin" users get power over
ALL or NONE of each type of resource (can you see a problem if each
department wants administrative powers, and a lot of office
politics are part of the corporate culture?).  NDS improves the
security structure of NT by allowing any user to be assigned (only by
the Admin user, of course) control over:  1. Specific users and/or
resources, 2. All users and/or resources within a specific branch of
the NDS tree (a group, or group of groups, etc.), 3. Specifically NOT
certain users, or branches within a branch they already have control
over.

Companies save a lot of money in the long run by doing this, and MIS
departments can end up with a larger purchasing budget when they show
that they don't need to hire as many extra administrative staff when
the company grows.

---------

Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 20:03:00 -0800
From: Anthony Baratta <Anthony@BARATTA.COM>
Subject: Re: NT and Novell

Randy Richardson wrote:
>NT has its problems (what's the last time you've heard of an NT
>server crashing?).  Take a look at the hidden long-term costs between
>the two (administration, licensing, scalability, security, backbone
>traffic requirements, etc.), and you'll see very quickly which one
>comes out on top.  Communicating this information to management is
>more of a challenge, of course, but it's mostly sales from this point
>on.
>
>Think of NT like those "air shoes" with the pumps that were really
>popular for a while.  NT is another fad, and it will pass in time.

Preaching to the choir out here, but I whole heartily agree with you.
Like someone else said out here too often I am hearing "Solve this
problem, and make sure its with NT not Novell". No amount of rational
discourse will change that. This has become an emotional decision (or
pay off somewhere along the line.)  There was information circulating of
a near revolt by the Military network engineers when the upper brass
came out and said that NT was the new standard PC networkinging
platform.  An all NT networking decision is an upper management
descision that is made (most of the time) without consulting the guys
who work in the trenches.

Both NT and Novell can co-exist on a network and with NDS can operate
better together than each seperately IMHO.  But its the 'I've got a
hammer and every problem is a nail' attitude that pisses me off. I
suggest the best solution for the problem.  Best of breed soltions are
alway more cost effective IMHO in the long run due to the effeciencies
you gain buy using the best solution instead of kludging a solution
together with poor product selection.

I've seen studies popping up that show that NT is 300% more expensive to
maintain than a Novell server from an Admin stand point. Those "soft
dollars" are hardly ever looked at during these decisions.  Its only
after the CIO is fired for cost over runs and network performance tanks
that people find this out.

NT is not a fad unfortunatly. M$ gets it right (about 75% of right)
after the third try.  If we strip off the version game the M$ marketing
plays.  NT 3.0 was Version 1. NT 3.5x was version 1.5. NT 4.0 is version
2.0. and NT 5.0 will be version 2.5. You can make the arguement that NT
5.0 is version 3.0 because of the (in)Active Directory. But it will take
at least until NT 5.5 for them to work out the bugs. Hell it took Novell
until 4.1 to get some of it right.  And Corporate America thinks MS is
the end all be all for all their desktop solutions.

So NT is around for the long haul. Its not eterpirse ready yet. And
Novell has it beat in many areas (file/print and NDS to name the major
two.) But MS is winning the marketing game. Novell is not a decent
application server yet (not that you'd want to combine them all the
time). It sucks.

---------

Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:04:48 -0800
From: Randy Richardson <randy@INTER-CORPORATE.COM>
Subject: Re: NT and Novell

>Randy,
>Great points but unfortunately M$ is out for blood  not coexistence.  I
>just had a major tuffle with Sr. Finance personnel who have bought into
>the "..One world under Microsoft the supreme ruler..." hubbub.

Are you sure?  A quote from the sages of ancient China:  Those who
crave profit and ignore justice are immature people.

Someone's not looking at the long term costs.  You need hard numbers
to show the costs involved in installing, supporting, and upgrading
these systems.  Your financial friends can then make the smart
decision for the company, which is what they are paid to do.  Take a
look at the success stories on Novell's site.

I've never come across a company that uses products from only one
vendor, and I doubt it's a realistic way to stay in business.

>I don't know who is running the Novell marketing machine now but whoever
>it is better get off their fannies and promote Netware as aggressively
>as the Technogurus who are engineering INW & Novonyx.

Have you let Novell know about your concerns?

>Otherwise M$ will truly take over the world, not though innovation or
>superior products but because they just shot off their mouths the most
>to the right people ....yet again..!!?!
[Snip]

This is what effective salespeople do.  Do you believe everything
you read, or do you verify the information first?  Some companies
are very serious when it comes to "try before you buy, and let us
[the company] call you [the vendor]."

I don't mind products being released late once in a while, because
that's quality assurance, but if this happens continually, then I
would suspect a more serious problem within the company that lies
deeper than QA.

Take over the world?  Yeah, sure.  I see Java all over the internet,
and almost never see ActiveX.  Plus, almost every site that has
ActiveX applets also has Java applets.  Looks like they're really
making gains here, oh yeah!

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

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 15:28:50 +0000
From: Guy Dawson <guy@CROSSFLIGHT.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Novell and C2

>They want the documentation from non-Novell people.  Thanks!!

I imagine the US gov agency or contractor who gives the certification
would have something.

It's worth noting that Intranetware V4.11 is C2 certified when
networked but that NT 3.51 is not!

That is, if a C2 certified NT3.51 is connected to a network, it
breaches the terms of it's C2 cert and is therefore nolonger certified!

As far as I know, NT 4.0 is not C2 certified connected or unconnected.

---------

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 09:41:15 -0800
From: Randy Richardson <randy@INTER-CORPORATE.COM>
Subject: Re: Novell and C2

>The NT people are saying that Netware 4.11 has not been C2 certified.
>Where can I get documentation that it is?  They want the documentation from
>non-Novell people.  Thanks!!

IntranetWare is C2 redbook certified:

	http://www.novell.com/press/archive/1997/10/pr97146.html

The following URL leads to documents describing how to implement C2
redbook security:

	http://support.novell.com/cgi-bin/search/tidfinder.cgi?2932708

I wrote an EMail to someone at the "National Computer Security
Center" recently, to verify this, and they wrote back to me
confirming that IntranetWare 4.11 is indeed certified.  I suggest you
do the same if you really need 3rd-party verification.

Also be aware that NT is only C2 orangebook, which means it is only
secure when no network, no telephone line, no floppy drive, and no
other connection to the outside world is connected to the system.

I've also heard that applying a service pack invalidates the C2
rating altogether (not that orangebook really means anything in a
networked environment anyway).

Why are your NT people concerned?

---------

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:16:55 -0700
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Novell and C2

	Phil has it about right as I understand it too. At not small risk
I again can point folks to a Windows bit-map scanned image of Novell's
C2 certificate. It is binary file C2CERT.BMP in directory misc on
netlab2.usu.edu (mirrored to pub/mirror/misc on netlab1.usu.edu). This file
is a private copy sharable on-site only to convince doubting Thomases.
	As I understand the situation NT is C2 rated for NT 3.51 only,
and only if there is no network, no serial port, nor floppy disk drive.
From what we know of cracking tools widely available on the net the floppy
drive part is easily understood, and so are the communications channels.
	I think we need to appreciate the massive effort an organization
expends on certification inspection. I am told that full source code must
be delivered and tonnes of supporting documentation, and so on. It's a
lengthy and painful process, and as a consequence the vital security related
core of products will likely not change as often as might be the case otherwise.
Reflect upon this with regard to the current battle of directories. Also,
certification will lag well behind market introduction.
	Joe D.

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

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 01:10:04 -0800
From: Randy Richardson <randy@INTER-CORPORATE.COM>
Subject: Re: hello

>I would like to know the major differences between Novell and Windows NT.
>What are the advantages and disadvantages of each.

The following URLs will be helpful:

Security
	http://www.novell.com/press/archive/1997/10/pr97146.html
	http://www.novell.com/products/nds/nds4nt/wpnds.html

Integration / Management
	http://www.novell.com/press/archive/1997/09/pr97129.html

Business-to-Business Commerce
	http://www.novell.com/press/archive/1997/05/pr97088.html

Cost of ownership
	http://www.novell.com/press/archive/1997/04/pr97070.html

From the trenches, I can list a few advantages with NetWare:

1. This list, which has over 4,000 participants all over the world
2. It's quicker and easier to setup and maintain
3. Easier for your end-users because they need only remember one
   login name and password (thanks to NDS) to access all resources
4. Better performance (to get equal performance from NT
   you need a much more powerful system with a lot more RAM)
5. C2 redbook security (including "Yes" products)
6. True cross-platform integration
7. Hierarchial security structure (if desired) for simplified user
   management
8. Reduced WAN traffic due to superior routing capabilities, even
   with mixed protocols (yes, you can turn off all SAP traffic)

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:04:07 -0600
From: Phil Altmaier <Altmaier.Phillip@PRINCIPAL.COM>
Subject: Re: Novell and C2

<SNIP>
>I'm talking about typing in commands on the server console that will go
>through NDS at a rate of hundreds of passwords per second, bypassing
>auditing and intruder detection.  REMOVE DOS doesn't stop this
>attack.
<SNIP>
Al Grant, Cambridge University
<SNIP>

Somewhere along the line someone has given you some information that is
not correct. A Novell server does not have command line executables to
try to crack NDS. Unlike a NT server that you can do a START:RUN and run
a program, Netware REQUIRES special files to load and run on the
console. It takes more that your average person to just whip one up that
will run without Abending the server. Unlike NT, which will GPF and
close the application without, hopefully, interrupting the rest of the
server, Netware will, if configured to do so, shut down the ENTIRE
system!  You then have the unpleasant prospect of explaining to the
rest of the administrators why you are standing at the console with
a disk in your hand!

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:07:42 -0600
From: Darren Rogers <emaildj@MINDLESS.COM>
Subject: Re: NT+Novell 4.1 + MPR + NW FaxServe

>Our company is in the process of installing a NT 4.0 server to host
>our intranet and web server (Domino/Lotus Notes). We are going to
>continue using the Novell 4.1 server with MPR for TCP/IP routing to
>the internet.
>
>I would like to know the best solution for users to have ONE login
>for NT and Novell servers.

Don't use the NT box as a gateway to NetWare.  Think about it, not
only are you adding an extra layer between the client and the server,
but that layer is a very slow one.  If you need the single log-in,
look at NDS for NT.  It will give you many more advantages in the
long run.

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

Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 07:18:57 +0200
From: Efi Ovadia <efi@ARELGW.ARELNET.COM>
Subject: C2 for netware 4.11

For those who aren't sure about C2 certification for NetWare 4.11 look at:

	http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/epl/epl-by-vendor.html

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

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 10:28:21 +0000
From: Andrew Large <andrew@MORNINGSIDE.MOBILE.K12.AL.US>
Subject: Re: RRAS & ISP Connection

>My IP is not getting routed and I haven't worked on it for over a week.
>The problem I had with RRAS not connecting was solved by re-applying
>the HotFix every time I changed anything with the NICS.

Now I know why I love Novell 4.11 with Internet Access Server  :-).  I
had a dial on demand link setup in 10 mins. Novell has a NLM call pppcon
and you can "see" the give and take between server and router.

I have been setting up an dial on demand link to my ISP for over three
days using NT 4.0 server sp3 and the "NEW" Routing and Remote Access
Server.  I have had NO LUCK getting a ppp connection working even with
turning off all authentication on the router.  The router is a Cisco
2509 with PPP and PAP authentication.

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

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:33:18 -0600
From: Phil Altmaier <Altmaier.Phillip@PRINCIPAL.COM>
Subject: NT vs. Novell

I am afraid that I just don't understand the fuss about the NT switch
from Novell. As I see it:

1. The price for the NT license to replace the Novell license is not
going to be cheap. Most likely more than the upgrade price. If you can
afford to buy that why can't you upgrade to IW4.11?

2. Once you have your new license for NT, What box are you going to run
it on? The old platform won't have enough horsepower so you will need to
buy a new server. More Money... Or upgrade the old server, again More
Money. Faster CPU, More Money  More RAM, More Money.

3. Ok now we have our new server and new NT. Big problem... The same
system, or new one, can't handle the same number of connections that the
Novell server could. Need to buy another server... More Money!!

4. Then M$ comes out with an upgrade to NTx ... Are they going to give
it away?? I think not! MORE MONEY!!

And on it goes....

The only thing I can see is that management likes the pretty pictures on
the server screen and thinks 'Why pay all that money for an admin
person? This is just like my desktop and I can run that...' Well maybe
not quite so simple... :)

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

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 13:49:39 +0000
From: Richard Letts <r.j.letts@SALFORD.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: NT vs. NetWare for IP only network

Paul Benninger wrote:
>I've configured both, and Micro$oft's is definitely easier. All of their
>encapsulation is behind the scenes. If you want to go with an IP-only
>machine, you get rid of NetBEUI, load IP, and that's all you have. With
>Novell's implementation, you load IP, and you also get IPX on the
>workstation. If I wanted IPX, I would have loaded it in the first place.

The problem is one of layering; Novell is closer to the OSI model, with
the LAN adaprt corresponding to the data-link and IPX to the Network
Layer. NETBIOS/NETBEUI is IPX split in half -- NETBIOS is the upper half
of the interface and defines how it talks to the lower part of the network
layer, and the NETBEUI is responsible for doing the delivery of Data.

This splitting of the functionality is what allows disparate network-layer
clouds in the Netbios world. Things are really tacky with NETBEUI, but
much nicer with RFC-NETBIOS (i.e. over TCPIP)

Anyway, you've made a technical evaluation of the performance of the two
and the ease of management and that's your professional decision. In
another situation I might come to the same conclusion, at the moment I'm
backing two horses:
 - the vendor who sold me the backbone network delivering IPX routing
 - Novell delivering native IP support on their fileservers

I'm less inclined to muck around with what the servers talk to client
with, since we remote-boot and that is fraught enough.

---------

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:46:32 -0600
From: Brian Scott <bscott@SYSTEMA.WESTARK.EDU>
Subject: Re: NT vs. NetWare for IP only network

BTW: did anyone read the article "NT - 800Megabits short of a
gigabit".  It points out the performance flaws in Microsoft TCP/IP
kernel.  Sorry I can't remember much of the article, but I think it
was in InternetWeek.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:58:12 -0700
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Novell-Microsoft partnership

>According to a story from ComputerWorld, "Novell, Inc. and rival
>Microsoft Corp. are talking about joining forces on as many as five
>cooperative ventures involving NetWare and Windows NT migration"
>beginning with joint development on an NT client. This was evidently
>revealed during a 'dress rehearsal' for BrainShare to an audience of
>major customers.
-------------
	No info. I talked with a MS engineer today about many things
and there was no willingness to discuss NDS with NT, nor even the NLS
license manager (presumed to be a joint project). But then what do
troops in the trenchs know about these things. There are other parallel
if not totally joint items in the works.
	Joe D.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 22:07:53 -0500
From: Rowan Hawkins <rjhawkin@UCF.ORG>
Subject: Re: NT vs. NetWare for IP only network (longish)

>BTW: did anyone read the artical "NT - 800Megabits short of a
>gigabit".  It points out the performance flaws in Microsoft tcp/ip
>kernel.  Sorry I can't remember much of the artical, but I think it
>was in InternetWeek.
>
>If your an NT fan don't worry, MS will later label this a a feature,
>and point out the benefits.

The article can be reached directly with the URL below, and deals
with NT vs. *nix. There is also an addendum published, which I have
included pertaining to Novell. The <SNIP>ing is mine for brevity.

I do not agree with the thrust of the article, nor the shortsighted
management approach it panders too.


   January 12, 1998, Issue: 697
   Section: News & Analysis
  ------------------------------
  NT Bogs Down In Gigabit Race
   Jeff Caruso and Amy Rogers
   Windows NT is about 800 megabits shy of a gigabit.

http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?INW19980112S0002

   <SNIP>

   The advent of Gigabit Ethernet means that the server OS itself-not the
   network-will become the new bottleneck for communications throughput.
   Since enterprises will deploy Gigabit Ethernet first in server
   connections and campus backbones, connecting to popular Windows NT
   servers is key.

   Microsoft wants NT Server 5.0 to be the de facto server operating
   system. But if NT is to unseat Unix from that privileged place, it
   must assure IT managers that NT can cope with mission-critical
   processing demands.

   <SNIP>

   "You will see the corporate commitment to NT, but until Microsoft gets
   its act together with clustering and load-balancing, Unix will remain
   the true enterprise server," said Peter Pollack, vice president and
   chief technologist at MTV/Showtime Networks Inc. Although many
   enterprise applications do not yet demand gigabit speeds, IT managers
   should plan for larger loads.

   <SNIP>

   Pollack said he expects few network managers will lose sleep over the
   performance issues. "I don't know anyone with thousands of people
   pounding on NT," he added.


   January 26, 1998, Issue: 699
   Section: Insights & Incites
  ------------------------------
  Left Out But Not Forgotten
http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?INW19980126S0075

   Your article on server OS problems with Gigabit Ethernet ("NT Bogs
   Down In Gigabit Race," InternetWeek, Jan. 12) was interesting;
   however, I noticed Novell NetWare was excluded from the evaluations.
   Is that because the vendors contacted had not tested NetWare?

   Mike Neph
   mikeneph@hotmail.com

   Editor's Note: Novell NetWare was excluded primarily for one reason:
   At this time, most vendors haven't developed drivers for NetWare,
   citing its waning popularity. One exception is Packet Engines, which
   reported that its Novell benchmarks were slightly higher than those
   for Windows NT, at just less than 300 Mbps for a 32-bit system.

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

