64 bit Novell Client for windows???
annie...@storageking.com
Win64 has been out for a couple years now, what is the holdup??
I am wanting to migrate some of our windows servers and high end
workstations to 64 bit versions of windows and cant because there is no
novell client that works on it.
Native file access is not an option...
Client service for netware is not an option because MS has given up on
Netware like most of the rest of the world (it is not included in the 64
bit versions, and wont be in "vista" workstation or server).
Please advise, this is frustrating.
Rui
Win64 Client. Novell is waiting for Vista to have any sort of 64bit client
and that will be available 3 months after the release of Vista. Whenever
that is!
<annie...@storageking.com> wrote in message
news:8VAog.11790$tN4....@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
Massimo Rosen
annie...@storageking.com wrote:
>
> When is there going to be a 64 bit Windows compatible Novell client?
A while after Vista ships. There will not be a 64bit client for XP64.
> Win64 has been out for a couple years now, what is the holdup??
What you're referring to as been out for a couple of years is Windows
for Itanium processors, which was a huge success (not), and doesn't
exist anymore. XP64 is only out for a few months, and it too is a niche
product for which Novell has decided to offer no support.
> I am wanting to migrate some of our windows servers and high end
> workstations to 64 bit versions of windows
Why?
CU,
--
Massimo Rosen
Novell Product Support Forum Sysop
No emails please!
http://www.cfc-it.de
annie...@storageking.com
(over a year ago)
Windows XP professional x64 was released in April of 2005 (over a year ago)
Both of these products were in Beta for some time, almost 2 years before
official release. What is the excuse?
Vista has no firm release date and you are saying Novell isnt even going to
release a 64 bit client for Windows 2003 or XP? Windows 2003 revision 2 was
released in late 2005, which makes it End of Life in 2015 if MS continues
their current support paradigm. So you wont support an OS that is not EOL
for 9.5 years?
And if you want to connect to a Netware server from a Windows x64 machine
you have to UPGRADE your OS?
That is unacceptable. Please tell me you are joking.
I cant be the only one that feels this way.
Massimo Rosen
annie...@storageking.com wrote:
> So you
"You"? I'm not Novell, not even a Novell employee.
> And if you want to connect to a Netware server from a Windows x64 machine
> you have to UPGRADE your OS?
If you want to do that with a Novell client, yes.
> That is unacceptable.
Call Novell and tell them.
> Please tell me you are joking.
No, I'm not.
> I cant be the only one that feels this way.
I for one happen to agree with Novells decision. XP64 is a very low
volume niche product, and will be history very soon after Vista ships.
Windows 2003 Server 64bit at least has some business value and market
strength, but *very few* customer running such a server really need a
Novell client on it. So overall, the ROI for Novell to develop a client
for a small and obviously not very long-living intermediate platform is
just not worth it. YMMV.
Barry Schnur
You might find it difficult to purchase systems from folks like Dell
with XP 64 -- there is a reason for that.
Regarding Vista -- my sense is that Novell sees that as the desktop
direction for Microsoft (and NOT XP 64) and is allocating resources to
support it with a client. A difficulty here is that the code from the
Microsoft side is still at least somewhat in flux, and the history is
that which 'fluxes' most is that which causes 3rd party folks the most
duplication of effort.
--
Barry Schnur
Novell Support Connection Volunteer Sysop
Barry Schnur
> Native file access is not an option...
Why is this not an option?
jma...@usefulthings.org
Netware.
I find it unacceptable too.
We have a move afoot to move our citrix terminal servers to Windows 2003
Server x64, which allows for 32 gigs of ram out of the box.
Terminal servers need memory, they thrive on it.
All of our other applications work on them, EXCEPT zenworks (for the DLU
feature) and Client32.
Since, for the moment anyway, we are a novell shop, and use NDS for
authentication for all network resources, we have to keep our servers at 32
bit windows.
So basically because Novell chooses NOT to release a 64 bit capable client
(and zenworks, but that is another story... we could live without it if
need be) we will be instead moving to Active directory.
The writing was on the wall, and we had been on the fence for a while, this
was just the proverbial "straw the broke the camel's back" so to speak.
Basically we are having to keep 2-3 times the number of Citrix servers in
our farms because we cant use x64 windows 2003 server. That cost adds up.
I dont care about xp64, but not having a client32 for windows 2003 server
x64 is really a terrible decision, and will cost Novell even more
customers. However, considering some of their bonehead moves the past 8-10
years, this does not surprise me.
jma...@usefulthings.org
Not surprising
> Windows 2003 Server 64bit at least has some business value and market
> strength, but *very few* customer running such a server really need a
> Novell client on it.
I just gave you an example, I happen to know a couple other people in the
same boat. Anyone out there who uses Novell portal services and Citrix are
basically screwed by this in one way or another.
> So overall, the ROI for Novell to develop a client
> for a small and obviously not very long-living intermediate platform is
> just not worth it.
Novell is no stranger to wasting money on stillborn or abandoned projects.
Just ask all the people who bought into Branch Office and border manager.
Barry Schnur
it's own dead end product and development of a client for it wouldn't
help with the development of a client for Vista as they are very
different animals.
Personally, I'd love to see Novell get users in the process for a
Client 64 for Vista. I'm not real thrilled with a 'wait until
Microsoft releases it, then we will start' approach (and I don't know
that this is what Novell is thinking about).
I also would really like to see Novell doing more for what they seem to
view as 'legacy' Novell folks (ie Netware *any* version compared to
SuSE server products). While I definitely see that Linux will be
Novell's future, I'd really like for us folks living in the NetWare
world not to feel *punished* for long term loyalty.
Duane Fish
Not surprisingly, I agree. ;)
Massimo Rosen
jma...@usefulthings.org wrote:
>
> > I for one happen to agree with Novells decision.
>
> Not surprising
Why?
> > Windows 2003 Server 64bit at least has some business value and market
> > strength, but *very few* customer running such a server really need a
> > Novell client on it.
>
> I just gave you an example, I happen to know a couple other people in the
> same boat. Anyone out there who uses Novell portal services and Citrix are
> basically screwed by this in one way or another.
Yes, I know (and Novell too) that there are customers that are affected
by that decision. They *are* very few anyways, believe me. And the few
customers I know personally that are affected by that decision
definitely do *NOT* need a 64bit OS at all. They just want it because 64
is a bigger number than 32.
> > So overall, the ROI for Novell to develop a client
> > for a small and obviously not very long-living intermediate platform is
> > just not worth it.
>
> Novell is no stranger to wasting money on stillborn or abandoned projects.
Agreed.
> Just ask all the people who bought into Branch Office and border manager.
Border Manager is a very bad example. It exists for over 10 years, is
very successful, and still alive and kicking with at least one more
version to come. NBO is a good one though, and I can come up with
minimum a dozen more.
Barry Schnur
>
>
Again, my concern is not with the from (NetWare) to (SuSE) bit, it is
with the road between the two. I see Novell as not making that road
smooth enough to encourage the transition.
Hamish Speirs
> Personally, I'd love to see Novell get users in the process for a
> Client 64 for Vista. I'm not real thrilled with a 'wait until
> Microsoft releases it, then we will start' approach (and I don't know
> that this is what Novell is thinking about).
During the development of a client for XP, Novell got repeatedly screwed
by MS changing the network API's and interfaces, causing Novell to have
to throw out huge amounts of development time and start over again.
They're not going to go throw the same pointless waste of time again,
and will wait until the API's and interfaces for Vista are locked down
before committing development resources to it.
--
Hamish Speirs
Novell Support Forums Volunteer Sysop.
(Please, no email unless requested. Unsolicited support emails will
probably be ignored)
Tim Ashman
> Barry,
>
>> Personally, I'd love to see Novell get users in the process for a
>> Client 64 for Vista. I'm not real thrilled with a 'wait until
>> Microsoft releases it, then we will start' approach (and I don't know
>> that this is what Novell is thinking about).
>
> During the development of a client for XP, Novell got repeatedly screwed
> by MS changing the network API's and interfaces, causing Novell to have
> to throw out huge amounts of development time and start over again.
> They're not going to go throw the same pointless waste of time again,
> and will wait until the API's and interfaces for Vista are locked down
> before committing development resources to it.
>
>
Here here, I applaud Novell for not playing that game. As far as I can tell
the new Vista is nothing most users or companies will need out of the gate
so I don't see the problem in waiting.
tim
Barry Schnur
> by MS changing the network API's and interfaces, causing Novell to have
> to throw out huge amounts of development time and start over again.
> They're not going to go throw the same pointless waste of time again,
> and will wait until the API's and interfaces for Vista are locked down
> before committing development resources to it.
>
Yes, I understand that thinking, and it does make sense, especially
since Microsoft typically messes with the network API's and interfaces
up until (and often after) code 'lock down'.
Heck, it wasn't just for XP, the same approach happened with 2000, and
was really obvious back in the Win95 days when Novell tried to work
*with* Microsoft regarding a client and spent a lot of time in wild
microsoft chases.
I suspect Novell might well doing some internal groundwork based on the
current Vista build, but not be willing to invest major resources until
later in the year.
Duane Fish
Yeah, I remember the Win95 NIOS training we had, when it was finally
possible to run a NetWare Login Script from within Windows. They really
had a time with the Blue Beast in getting the final code in place.
Now that M$ is fighting even harder for their survival (hard as that is
to fathom), they're being an even bigger "bugger" to deal with as far as
sharing anything that would benefit anyone but themselves.
craig wilson
Symantec, if recalling correctly, that could seriously impact the effect
in which 3rd party products interact with Vista. So the possibility
that key items will change between now and whenever it actually ships is
definately there.
Additionally, its not like the Novell engineers have not begun working
on the client, they just have not made it PUBLICLY available. To do so
would partially lock them in to a certain extent and people would expect
that method to continue, even when the OS changes and there would be
better ways to implement after those changes. Once Vista goes gold, MS
has similar commitments and Novell can more easily commit.
> During the development of a client for XP, Novell got repeatedly screwed
> by MS changing the network API's and interfaces, causing Novell to have
> to throw out huge amounts of development time and start over again.
> They're not going to go throw the same pointless waste of time again,
> and will wait until the API's and interfaces for Vista are locked down
> before committing development resources to it.
>
>
--
Craig Wilson
Novell Product Support Forum Sysop
Master CNE, MCSE 2003, CCN
Barry Schnur
CIFS -- no joy here. Then again, Vista 64 is sort of weird regarding
workgroup connectivity -- doesn't see any Win2K or XP workstations in
the local network, but can, if provided the proper information map to a
drive on another workstation.
For that matter, other workstations show the Vista 64 workstation in
the workgroup, but then when I try to proceed from that side I get
Network path not found.
I suspect a piece of this might be me having problems figuring out new
Microsoft metaphors...
annie...@storageking.com
> by MS changing the network API's and interfaces, causing Novell to have
> to throw out huge amounts of development time and start over again.
> They're not going to go throw the same pointless waste of time again,
> and will wait until the API's and interfaces for Vista are locked down
> before committing development resources to it.
Again, this is the "here and now". XP64, and more importantly, server 2003
x64 have been out for over a year.
If Novell got "screwed" by MS in the past when doing client32 upgrades,
they should consider that part of the cost of doing business. Us paying
customers should not be expected to have to wait over a year (if ever) to
have a client for what should be a supported OS.
Vista does not concern me, as its still a beta OS and I dont have to
justify my stance in not using NFA or CIFS. I just dont have the time to
do it, and some of my servers dont support it (5.1).
Joseph Marton
> to have a client for what should be a supported OS.
>
> I just dont have the time to
> do it, and some of my servers dont support it (5.1).
Uh... before you start talking about supported OSes, maybe you should make
sure all your OSes are supported. NetWare 5.1 isn't.
Joe
Joseph Marton
> I've tried to get Vista 64 to see my 6.5 SP5 plus post SP5 updates via
> CIFS -- no joy here. Then again, Vista 64 is sort of weird regarding
> workgroup connectivity -- doesn't see any Win2K or XP workstations in
> the local network, but can, if provided the proper information map to a
> drive on another workstation.
FYI, even with Vista32 I haven't been able to connect to my NW65SP5
servers via CIFS. This is even with beta 2. In fact it seems pretty hit
or miss connecting to CIFS/SAMBA from Vista. I can connect to Windows
2000, Windows 2003, and SLES 9. I can't connect to NW65SP5 nor can I
connect to our NetApp device.
Joe
annie...@storageking.com
effort required to get NFA/CIFS working on all of them would put this into
the unrealistic category.
Barry Schnur
in the same network that my 6.5 server is set up for using NFA/CIFS,
and I can access the NFA/CIFS shares readily from W2K or XP systems.
Clearly this is one of those Microsoft 'improvements' they have
implemented.
Barry Schnur
> effort required to get NFA/CIFS working on all of them would put this into
> the unrealistic category.
>
you said:
"If Novell got "screwed" by MS in the past when doing client32
upgrades, they should consider that part of the cost of doing business.
Us paying customers should not be expected to have to wait over a year
(if ever) to have a client for what should be a supported OS."
So configuring NFA/CIFS to support XP64 (which may be out there, but
like WinME doesn't really have a future), might in fact be a cost of
doing business for you. One of those goose/gander things.
craig wilson
signing.
Barry Schnur wrote:
> Right -- it is rather strange -- I can share out from the Vista 64 box
> in the same network that my 6.5 server is set up for using NFA/CIFS,
> and I can access the NFA/CIFS shares readily from W2K or XP systems.
>
> Clearly this is one of those Microsoft 'improvements' they have
> implemented.
--
Joseph Marton
> My guess is a default security setting involving some type of packet
> signing.
Could be. It's tough to tell without diving much further into the problem
than I care. What would be interesting is to see if it also works with
the version of SAMBA in SLES10. Then I'd almost wonder if Novell had a
hand in it...
"Hey Bill, I know we've had our disagreements, but can you give us a hand
and make sure that Vista can't talk to NetWare CIFS but is ok going to
SAMBA on Linux? We really want to convince our NW customers to migrate
away already."
"Sure, guys, why not. Eventually they will all want to move to Windows
anyways."
"Why you little..."
Joe
craig wilson
try to figure out what we need to do to integrate it into our existing
IT infrastructure. There is a very good and workable solution, but what
you need to do is reconfigure your old software to work with the new
software. This is quite common if not the norm.
It would be great if Novell had a client for every OS out there from the
MACs to OS/2, but Novell has generally only created clients for
mainstream Operating systems, which XP64 is not. Novell has always
created solutions for the other product such as letting the Novell
server emulate a Unix Box, MAC, or Windows Server (Since NW5.x with
inexpensive add-ons).
--
Joseph Marton
> It would be great if Novell had a client for every OS out there from the
> MACs to OS/2,
There's no Novell client for OS/2?! Dammit!
Joe
Alan Adams
> I've tried to get Vista 64 to see my 6.5 SP5 plus post SP5 updates via
> CIFS -- no joy here.
For me Vista x86 & x64 both behaved like XP Professional x64, in that
they were unable to connect to NetWare 6.5 SP5 via CIFS. (When
multiple XP Professional SP2 x86 machines were hitting the same server
via CIFs just fine. All in workgroup mode.)
LAN traces showed that an NTLMv2-specific failure was the first
hurdle, and indeed Vista and XP x64 (and Visa, and 2003 SP1) had a new
default for the "Network security: Lan Manager authentication level"
policy that now requires NTLMv2.
(Specifically the default for 2003 SP1, XP x64 and Vista is "Send
NTLMv2 only". XP Professional SP2 x86 defaulted to "Send LM & NTLM".)
Setting that policy to be something "inbetween" the XP Professional
SP2 x86 default and the new default -- specifically "Send LM & NTLM -
use NTLMv2 session security if negotiated" -- got me part of the way
there. But against NetWare CIFS all of these platforms still failed,
except now the LAN trace showed that the error was during a DCE RPC
bind.
So I went looking to see "do I have Novell's current CIFS updates",
and found the 15MAR2006 n65nss5a.exe which addressed several ambiguous
things like "Fixed CIFS problem when doing START->Run->\\<cifs
server>> on Win2K/XP clients".
http://support.novell.com/cgi-bin/search/searchtid.cgi?/2973412.htm
With this CIFS update applied, now my Vista x86, Vista x64, and XP
Professional x64 all connect successfully to my NetWare 6.5 SP5 CIFS.
But if and only if I've backed off their "Network security: Lan
Manager authentication level" policy from its new default of "Send
NTLMv2 only" to be "Send LM & NTLM - use NTLMv2 session security if
negotiated" or lower. Apparently the NetWare CIFS still doesn't
support NTLMv2 completely/properly.
- - - - - - - - - -
Regarding your Vista x64 seeing other computers in a workgroup where
other computers have no problem seeing the Vista machine, there is a
somewhat obscure "public" versus "private" designation Vista has for
networks it connects to, which affects whether its even permitting
computer discovery
If you right-click the network icon in the system tray and go to the
"Network and Sharing Center", it should show whether it considers the
current network a "(Private network)" or "(Public network)" and the
status of functions such as discovery, password required, etc.
Alan Adams
alancru...@drcrumb.com
(for email, remove the crumbs)
Duane Fish
Where have you been? Thought you fell off the planet or something.
Good to see you again!
Alan Adams
> ...and indeed Vista and XP x64 (and Visa, and 2003 SP1) had
> a new default for the "Network security: Lan Manager
> authentication level" policy that now requires NTLMv2.
Actually my "Visa" is fine. Brain temporarily disconnected from my
keyboard while trying to list the post-2003 SP1 platforms.
But I needed to revisit this statement anyway, because I did not get
my facts correct. (1) I flubbed the fact that some of these platforms
are actually defaulting to "Send NTLM response only", and not "Send
NTLMv2 response only". And (2) I included Server 2003 because of what
seems to be an incorrect statement in KB823659 that "made sense" but
allowed me to draw incorrect conclusions.
KB823659 indicates "Windows Server 2003 has a new default setting to
use NTLMv2 only" and reinforced what I thought I was seeing on XP x64
(which is also based on Server 2003 SP1 code base). But I do not find
this fact to bear out in the default Server 2003 systems I have access
to either. Both 2003 SP1 x86 and 2003 SP1 x64 appear to default to
"Send NTLM response only". XP Professional x64 actually defaults to
"Send NTLM response only" too, not "Send NTLMv2 response only" as I
originally reported. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/823659/
So I must restate my test and failure platforms as:
XP Professional x64 (which defaults to "Send NTLM response only"), and
Vista x86 & Vista x64 (which both default to "Send NTLMv2 response
only"). All three of these platforms fail to access NetWare 6.5 SP5
CIFS successfully in my testing.
Changing the "Network security: Lan Manager authentication level"
policy to "Send LM & NTLM - use NTLMv2 session security if negotiated"
allowed these three platforms to succeed in my testing, but only after
also applying n65nss5a.exe to the NetWare 6.5 SP5 CIFS configuration.
To my knowledge and testing thus far, neither Server 2003 SP1 x86 nor
Server 2003 SP1 x64 fail against NetWare 6.5 SP5 CIFS, even though the
default policy is also "Send NTLM response only" just like XP x64.
When I'm not wasting time correcting myself, I'll have to look at the
LAN traces to see if there are clues as to why.
Barry Schnur
> signing.
>
makes figuring this stuff out more work than it should be (and of
course it really should be sort of straightforward, but Vista is
Microsoft's way of saying LEARN SuSE <smile>)
Barry Schnur
morrow.
Barry Schnur
> MACs to OS/2, but Novell has generally only created clients for
> mainstream Operating systems, which XP64 is not. Novell has always
> created solutions for the other product such as letting the Novell
> server emulate a Unix Box, MAC, or Windows Server (Since NW5.x with
> inexpensive add-ons).
>
>
bit Windows setups -- I'll try that out tomorrow.
Barry Schnur
>
Joseph Marton
>> There's no Novell client for OS/2?! Dammit!
>>
> So write one!
Um... I was kidding. The last time I used OS/2 was when I got tired of
waiting for M$ to release "Chicago". Didn't IBM retire OS/2? Think I
read something about that a little while back.
Joe
Massimo Rosen
craig wilson wrote:
>
> My guess is a default security setting involving some type of packet
> signing.
Given the latest patches are applied to NW6.5, this shouldn't be it.
CU,
--
Massimo Rosen
Novell Support Connection Sysop
No emails please!
http://www.cfc-it.de
Massimo Rosen
Alan Adams wrote:
>
> To my knowledge and testing thus far, neither Server 2003 SP1 x86 nor
> Server 2003 SP1 x64 fail against NetWare 6.5 SP5 CIFS, even though the
> default policy is also "Send NTLM response only" just like XP x64.
I can attest that they *do* fail against plain SP5, but work unchanged
after nss5a is applied.
Alan Adams
> Where have you been? Thought you fell off the planet or something.
Had to let go of other things and hang on to my day job with both
hands for a spell there.
Alan Adams
> Alan Adams wrote:
> >
> > To my knowledge and testing thus far, neither Server 2003 SP1 x86 nor
> > Server 2003 SP1 x64 fail against NetWare 6.5 SP5 CIFS, even though the
> > default policy is also "Send NTLM response only" just like XP x64.
>
> I can attest that they *do* fail against plain SP5, but work unchanged
> after nss5a is applied.
Yeah, I should go to bed yesterday and wake up to do that post over.
Realizing that my 2003 conclusions were wrong /after/ having already
patched the server needed me to just reset everything.
Thanks for the confirmation; I certainly take your observation over
mine on this point.
Barry Schnur
> waiting for M$ to release "Chicago". Didn't IBM retire OS/2? Think I
> read something about that a little while back.
>
folks complaining they can't get Vista 64 to log in to NetWare 3.11 <g>
Barry Schnur
Actually, it seems it is, with my NW 6.5 SP5 plus post SP5 updates, it
turns out that the default Network Security Policy in XP64 (and Vista)
is: Send NTLMv2 Only
Alan provided this tip and I just tried it out with success on Vista
64, I changed the setting to:
Send LM & NTLM - use NTLMv2 session security if negotiated
That works.
Barry Schnur
> after nss5a is applied.
Strange, in my setup I have NSS5a deployed and it didn't work, I needed
to make the change.
Barry Schnur
> mine on this point.
>
the change on the Vista 64 system
NSS is at 3.24.01 here -- I did that last week, bounced the server
twice since then for various reasons, so I know the update is in place
on the server.
roman modic
"Joseph Marton" <jma...@NOSPAMhsemuni.com> wrote in message news:pan.2006.07.06....@NOSPAMhsemuni.com...
OS/2 is now called eComStation (eCS):
http://www.russharvey.bc.ca/os2/ecs.html
[quote]
eComStation (eCS) was released by Serenity Systems as a
replacement for OS/2 Warp 4 which is no longer being sold
by IBM. IBM support for OS/2 and OS/2 Warp Server for e-
business (an excellent e-commerce platform--not well suited
to the single user) ends December 31, 2006. SOHO users
will find eComStation to be an excellent productivity platform
with lots of eye candy for those that like to enhance their
desktops.
---
Version 2.0 Improvements:
- Support for ACPI power management;
- Improved harddisk management;
- Support for Bootable JFS;
- Support for multi-user desktops;
- Support for Samba (Windows & Linux networking);
- TCPIP updates, including DHCP;
- Improved installation and migration options.
[/quote]
Cheers, Roman
Barry Schnur
See, it ain't dead, just sleeping <g>.
craig wilson
> See, it ain't dead, just sleeping <g>.
>
>
I think I will go check on the status of the Client for "eComStation"
Barry Schnur
>
Joseph Marton
> Barry Schnur wrote:
>> See, it ain't dead, just sleeping <g>.
>>
>>
>
> I think I will go check on the status of the Client for "eComStation"
I hope there will be a client for eComStation64!
Joe
al....@discovertpa.net
who have not already jumped ship.
Comparing OS/2 to a mainstream OS like Windows 2003 server is an absurd stretch
They should have a client for it, and I am sure Novell will lose even more
marketshare for idiotic moves like this
Barry Schnur
our mutterings might well be predisposed to do that.
Note, a number of us did urge for Novell to offer Client 64 support for
XP 64. The thing here is that at least at the workstation (and that's
the primary target for a workstation client), XP 64 has turned out to
be a 'limited edition' product.
Vista -- that will be a different matter and support for it will be
important. But as a number of folks have noted, the Vista OS,
particularly in areas of interoperability and interconnectivity is
something that can change in nasty ways up until (and after for that
matter) the formal release.
That being said, I can confirm, for those interested in this sort of
connectivity, that it IS possible to configure NW 6.5 SP5 plus post SP5
updates and Vista 64 (Beta 2) to connect using NFA. For now, those who
are interested in this connectivity can certainly do it.
For those clamoring for Novell to release a Client 64 for a beta
product -- this might not suffice, I can understand that for this
particular mind set, Novell isn't going to make for happiness.
Sandy
degree they're the same OS), and because of the need (especially for terminal servers)
Novell should go ahead and release a client for these operating systems.
Windows Vista and Windows Server Longhorn are a totally different matter - they're beta,
and I wouldn't expect anything supported from Novell until Windows Vista is finished,
released and fully supported by Microsoft.
Customers can't wait to go 64-bit on terminal servers until Longhorn server, they need a
Novell Client for Windows Server 2003 x64, soon (and we need to request this using both
the enhancement request form on the Novell web site and through local Novell representatives).
-Sandy
dysfn...@gmail.com
Slashdot post I submitted:
http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/06/07/12/0131243.shtml
-Chad
> When is there going to be a 64 bit Windows compatible Novell client?
>
> Win64 has been out for a couple years now, what is the holdup??
>
> I am wanting to migrate some of our windows servers and high end
> workstations to 64 bit versions of windows and cant because there is no
> novell client that works on it.
>
> Native file access is not an option...
>
> Client service for netware is not an option because MS has given up on
> Netware like most of the rest of the world (it is not included in the 64
> bit versions, and wont be in "vista" workstation or server).
>
> Please advise, this is frustrating.
Barry Schnur
> x64 (to a large degree they're the same OS), and because of the need
> (especially for terminal servers) Novell should go ahead and release
> a client for these operating systems.
Understood -- my read is that Novell didn't see a large enough user
pool (or potential revenue *source*) in their decision to not allocate
resources for this client. I do understand that some folks were
required by their support environment to go to a 64 bit version of the
Windows server OS (terminal servers in particular), but again, it seems
that Novell didn't see this population as something to spend money on
from their side in terms of client development.
>
> Windows Vista and Windows Server Longhorn are a totally different
> matter - they're beta, and I wouldn't expect anything supported
> from Novell until Windows Vista is finished, released and fully
> supported by Microsoft.
Right -- we are in synch on this one.
> Customers can't wait to go 64-bit on terminal servers until
> Longhorn server, they need a Novell Client for Windows Server
> 2003 x64, soon (and we need to request this using both the
> enhancement request form on the Novell web site and through
> local Novell representatives).
Right -- though I suspect that about the only way Novell would
reallocate resources to support this request is for Novell customers
with a LOT of CLOUT to push this.
dsim...@oratexas.com
faster |!!! It is like butter !!!
comes bundled with 64-bit IE; I downloaded UNREAL 2004 64-bit update,
and FAR CRY 64-bit update. All MY DREAMS HAVE COME TRUE !!!!
EXCEPT I can't talk to my Netware 5.1 servers.
However, the horrible bug ridden trail of tears that Novell subjected us
to going from 4.90 to 4.1 SP2 gives me pause to allow Novell to get the
bugs out. Hopefully the new pres will slap them around and raise the
morale.
I'm running an AMD 64 3000+
-=Dick Simmons