Windows Server 2003 + NetWare Client
dysfn...@gmail.com
being possible since Novell is waiting (absurdly enough) for Vista to
launch to release a NetWare client for 64 bit Windows OSes. While this
is absolutely appaling, I was investigating the possibility of running
the NetWare client through emulation software, which lead me to Windows
on Windows 64 (WOW64). Is it not possible to convert the Netware 4.9x
installation to an MSI format in order to take advantage of the 32-bit
subsystem of say, Windows Server 2003 x64 edition?
I know that I cannot be alone in the situation I'm in: Sun X4200
servers w/ Dual Core Opterons, Windows Server 2003 x64, Citrix
Presentation Server 4 64-bit Edition, and the need to access Novell
shares from the published desktop.
What gives Novell?
Alan Adams
> ...I was investigating the possibility of running the NetWare
> client through emulation software, which lead me to Windows
> on Windows 64 (WOW64). Is it not possible to convert the
> Netware 4.9x installation to an MSI format in order to take
> advantage of the 32-bit subsystem of say, Windows Server 2003
> x64 edition?
Just to address the WOW64 question:
Unfortunately no, as WOW64 only intends and supplies 32-bit
compatibility for user-mode applications. Half of the Novell Client
for Windows is kernel-mode drivers, which on x64 platforms must be
written specifically for x64 and have no "emulation" mode for 32-bit.
So WOW64 makes it so you can potentially run your 32-bit version of
Office on an otherwise x64 operating system, but x64 still requires
that all the drivers be 64-bit, despite what WOW64 provides at the
application level.
Alan Adams
alancru...@drcrumb.com
(for email, remove the crumbs)
craig wilson
access the NetWare server using the Windows Client for MS Networks.
There is not a 64-Bit Client at this time.
Expect one to be released for Vista shortly after Vista ships.
--
Craig Wilson
Novell Product Support Forum Sysop
Master CNE, MCSE 2003, CCN
al....@discovertpa.net
and dont have the manpower to roll out CIFS. the way I see it, we shouldnt
have to
oh well, another 6 months or so this will all be a moot point, as NW will
be bye bye
dysfn...@gmail.com
Exactly. We are currently running Netware 5.x and the cost to upgrade
to 6.x just to use CIFS (and without login scripts, which significantly
changes how our end users will operate in the system) is astounding.
I've been told that in order to allow login scripts through CIFS, one
would need to upgrade Zenworks as well, adding an additional cost to
the simple task of upgrading our Citrix servers.
There's no other solution to accessing the Novell shares?
Maybe the push for the 64bit client in beta form will be prompted by
the growing number of businesses who are in the exact same position as
we are...
al....@discovertpa.net
craig wilson
There are way of connecting explorer over HTTP, FTP, etc.. etc. etc..
All of these may be acceptable for servers that need to connect to a
NetWare box on occassion to retrieve data every so often.
For use in a Citrix Solution, this is not possible.
I feel for you as a NW5.x user, but unfortunately NW5.x is no longer
supported. I do not see a solution for you in the near-term other than
an Upgrade to NW6.x
The loss of login scripts also would be tough.
I've had to write "Logon" scripts for a couple of Customers that went
from NetWare to Windows and the process is more complex than on NetWare.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I've been told that in order to allow login scripts through CIFS, one
> would need to upgrade Zenworks as well, adding an additional cost to
> the simple task of upgrading our Citrix servers.
I am a little confused here as well.
Do you mean to use ZENworks w/o the Novell Client?
Yes, this would require ZENworks 4.x or greater.
dysfn...@gmail.com
al....@discovertpa.net wrote:
> This ought to give you an idea of what novell thinks of its customers:
>
> http://forums.novell.com/group/novell.support.netware.client.winnt-2x-xp/readerNoFrame.tpt/@thread@32310@F@10@D-,D@+32429+32268/@article@32268
Okay how about this:
VMWare, booting Windows XP/2000 images, addressing 8GB of RAM, running
the NW client. 2 VMWare images running on each server.
Barry Schnur
> to 6.x just to use CIFS (and without login scripts, which significantly
> changes how our end users will operate in the system) is astounding.
>
to NW 6.5 or OES (either NW or SuSE kernel), AND are migrating
workstations to 64 bit Windows, then it seems to me that you are asking
for Novell to allocate resources for free while you are willing to fund
Microsoft's 64 bit effort.
I realize that you might view Microsoft in more need of revenue than
Novell, but I think that might not play for Novell.
--
Barry Schnur
Novell Support Connection Volunteer Sysop
dysfn...@gmail.com
We have adamently support Novell and Microsoft for years. We have no
reason to upgrade to NetWare currently, and it's ridiculous to think
that we need to upgrade just to get a client on two servers. We still
pay for support for our current infrastructure and will continue to do
so until we no longer use NetWare in our environment.
Novell has been a rock up until this point, and it's extremely
disappointing to see a company like this turn away customers simply
because it won't release a client for an OS that has been out for over
a year now. It seems like it's personal beef with Microsoft if you ask
me, and to anyone else who has any involvement in the IT industry can
quickly arrive at the same conclusions.
This isn't a debate about Linux vs the World either. It's not time for
a Linux desktop to be deployed in our enterprise environment yet.
The *BEST* solution for us currently is Citrix for terminal services,
NetWare for network shares/printing/file access, and Microsoft for
Exchange/SQL/Active Directory.
Novell is now pushing us to explore alternative solutions.
Barry Schnur
vista. I guess (note, I'm not a Novell employee), that the way Novell
looks at it is given that they have to make resource allocation choices
with less resources than I suspect you think they have, they will
allocate some for Client 64 -- which after all is a client for a server
OS that Novell is not, shall we say, one that Novell sees as its
future, but rather than pour resources into an XP 64 (including MS 2003
Server 64), they will allocate those resources to what they see as
their future products.
I understand their vantage point, not saying I fully agree or like it
(I've done NetWare since 3.11), but if, as a company, you've decided to
place your bets with a Linux future, then you are likely to be very
stingy placing resources in the 'old stuff'.
So far, for my client base, this hasn't caused a problem -- heck, the
bulk of my clients are running Win2K on the workstation. For me, I
figure to get hands on with the Microsoft Vista product (and pass on XP
64), and also start the long trek up the Linux curve as well.
dysfn...@gmail.com
We have no intentions of using XP-64 on any of our workstations; the
push to 64-bit came with the need to address much more memory to
support our Citrix users. In the long run this push to 64-bit
technology should pay dividends because we are able to support much
more users and conceivably for a long time before needing to upgrade
our hardware.
I appreciate your commentary and I'm glad that someone at least
involved in Novell is aware of the issue we have been presented, and
that we are not the only company in this position.
craig wilson
But the VMWare Images will not be easily accessible by large number of
folks. My previous employer looked at deploying VMWare images through
Citrix for various reasons and found that it worked fine for one person
to do something, but trying to get 100s/1000s of folks using that image
was not feasible.
Joseph Marton
> We have adamently support Novell and Microsoft for years. We have no
> reason to upgrade to NetWare currently, and it's ridiculous to think
> that we need to upgrade just to get a client on two servers. We still
> pay for support for our current infrastructure and will continue to do
> so until we no longer use NetWare in our environment.
>
> The *BEST* solution for us currently is [...] Microsoft for
> Exchange/SQL/Active Directory.
And I'm sure you're still running Windows 2000 Server for
Exchange/SQL/Active Directory. After all, it's ridiculous to think that
M$ would force you to upgrade to Windows Server 2003! I bet your
workstations are all still Windows 2000 Professional as well, no need for
Windows XP.
Windows 2000 Server was released a month or so after NetWare 5.1. While
you can still find both NOSes out there, many people have moved on both in
the Microsoft & Novell realms. Eventually you just can't keep running the
old crap; you have to upgrade. It doesn't matter if you need only one of
the new features or all of them. The vendors can't keep supporting the
old stuff, and so they don't.
Take a look, you can see that the support lifecycle for NetWare 5.1
and Windows 2000 Server are really about the same:
http://tinyurl.com/zf4vl
http://tinyurl.com/gnn9z
Joe
dysfn...@gmail.com
I wonder if they (Citrix) are pursuing a solution involving VMWare for
situations similar to what I'm involved with. I spoke with my Citrix
rep who in turn spoke with a Citrix engineer who is actually training
with VMWare as we speak.
I will be interested to see what he has to say about VMWare and Citrix.
dysfn...@gmail.com
Your assumptions are only half true: all of our workstations are
running Windows XP and our servers are running an array of OSes from
Windows 2000 Server to Windows 2003 Server.
Most of this is irrelevant though, because the client is used to
connect to many different versions of NetWare. The version of NetWare
we are running has little to do with the fact that the client cannot
run on a 64-bit workstation. Even if we were running NetWare 6.x, we
STILL could not use the NetWare client on the machines in question.
Sure, we could use an entirely different method of accessing the shares
(CIFS) and have pseudo-login scripts through Zen 7.x, but the basic
functionality we have come to know and our end users have come to know
through the NetWare client is totally lost.
The fact that Novell has ostracized companies in similar situations is
what's frustrating.
craig wilson
One thing they did test a bit more successfully was running Multiple
Citrix Servers on a large VMWare ESX server.
So you have 1 VMWare ESX server with 32GB of ram running 8 Citrix Boxes
each with 4GB of memory.
Joseph Marton
> Most of this is irrelevant though, because the client is used to
> connect to many different versions of NetWare.
Sure it's relevant. Novell may not have a client for 64-bit OSes and may
not ever develop one for XP64/2K3-64, but for people running newer
versions of NetWare there's always a second option of CIFS. They've
provided multiple ways to access the server. If you're running older
versions of NetWare that don't have the capability of being accessed in
multiple ways, that's not Novell's fault. Again, they can't keep
supporting the old stuff. Neither can M$ for that matter.
Joe
sys...@wrightfreight.com
Honestly, this is just giving customers another reason to migrate away from
novell products
sys...@wrightfreight.com
> you can still find both NOSes out there, many people have moved on both in
> the Microsoft & Novell realms. Eventually you just can't keep running the
> old crap; you have to upgrade.
>
> and Windows 2000 Server are really about the same:
Netware 5.1 was released in 2000, support ended this year (~6 years)
Netware 6.0 was released in october 2001, support ended this year (~4.5 years)
Novell abandoned Netware 6 relatively early, SP5 was released in what? 2004
and at that time customers were told that development was being abandoned
after what, 3 years??
Netware 6.5 should have been a free upgrade to Netware 6.0 customers
As a reference, M$, despite their issues, seems to support their big
products (SQL server, Exchange, windows server) for ~10 years in some
degree, at least they will give you phone support for windows/sql2000 and
exchange 5.5 where Novell wont for Netware 5.1, 6.0 or any groupwise prior
to 6.5
They definetly would not have pulled something like this "client64" fiasco.
I believe there are ALOT of people wanting 64 bit client for windows 2003 x64
Joseph Marton
> Netware 5.1 was released in 2000, support ended this year (~6 years)
> Netware 6.0 was released in october 2001, support ended this year (~4.5 years)
NetWare 4.0 was quickly replaced with NetWare 4.1. NetWare 5.0 was
quickly replaced with NetWare 5.1. NetWare 6.0, while not as quickly, was
also replaced by NetWare 6.5. Any product version ending with .0 is
usually problematic, and so Novell has moved customers on to the next
version. Can't blame them, especially with 4.0 and 5.0.
> Netware 6.5 should have been a free upgrade to Netware 6.0 customers
So should Windows Server 2003 have been a free upgrade to Windows 2000
Server customers?
> As a reference, M$, despite their issues, seems to support their big
> products (SQL server, Exchange, windows server) for ~10 years in some
> degree, at least they will give you phone support for windows/sql2000
> and exchange 5.5 where Novell wont for Netware 5.1, 6.0 or any groupwise
> prior to 6.5
Novell isn't pulling all support for these products. And in fact with
NetWare 6.5 they have pledged support through something like 2015.
> They definetly would not have pulled something like this "client64"
> fiasco.
Hey, remember all that stuff that was going to be included in NT 4.0 SP7?
Or Windows 2000 SP5? Where are those? Oh, that's right, M$ decided not
to create them after all even though originally both were on the roadmap.
Why create new service packs when you can just get your customers to
purchase the next version of the NOS?
> I believe there are ALOT of people wanting 64 bit client for windows
> 2003 x64
Those people need to quit whining and give the folks at VMware a call.
Then they can run multiple 32-bit OSes on their big honkin' 64-bit servers
running a 64-bit host.
Joe
Joseph Marton
> I do understand the lament -- for me, the issue has been more a matter
> of not seeing a smooth 'from - to' handling of NetWare to SuSE -- it is
> still a lot of work to get that done, especially if you were migrating
> from NetWare 4.2...
I wonder if there are still any 3.x servers out there. Imagine going from
NetWare & bindery to Linux & NDS. :-)
Joe
Barry Schnur
> novell products
I do understand the lament -- for me, the issue has been more a matter
of not seeing a smooth 'from - to' handling of NetWare to SuSE -- it is
still a lot of work to get that done, especially if you were migrating
from NetWare 4.2...
Barry Schnur
> involved in Novell is aware of the issue we have been presented, and
> that we are not the only company in this position.
I guess the deal here would be assuming there is a Vista Server version
(My suspicion is that there will be one after end users have performed
a high volume beta on shipping Vista code). At that point a Vista 64
client will do the trick.
Until then, in that the network code for Server 2003 64 is a match to
XP 64, I don't hope much hope for a client there.
Barry Schnur
> NetWare & bindery to Linux & NDS. :-)
I expect that there are plenty of 3.x servers *running* out there. And
moving from that to SuSE would be a true chore.
For now, about the only way to go from 4.x to SuSE is to make an
interim stop with 5.1 or later...
Barry Schnur
> quickly replaced with NetWare 5.1. NetWare 6.0, while not as quickly, was
> also replaced by NetWare 6.5. Any product version ending with .0 is
> usually problematic, and so Novell has moved customers on to the next
> version. Can't blame them, especially with 4.0 and 5.0.
In the case of the 4.0x > 4.10 move -- that one folks were entitled to
a free bump. Which made good sense, 4.0 was not a friendly release.
For 5.0 to 5.1 -- that was not a free bump, 5.0 was not near as bad as
4.0 -- heck, I still have an SBS 5.0 client running the product
(despite my suggestions to move on -- then again, the workstations
supported are Win 98!).
Same thing for 6.0 to 6.5 -- not a free bump, and 6.0 (especially with
the later service packs) is not a bad product to work with in terms of
stability and performance.
dysfn...@gmail.com
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/12/0131243
lewi...@gmail.com
Windows 2003?