Apple to Market NT Servers
Lir...@ix.netcom.com
Has Apple thrown in the towel, conceding defeat in the war of the OSes? Is Apple singing the familiar tune "If
you can't beat them, join them?"
According to the following story (http://techweb.cmp.com/iw/current/hotnew.htm#st1a_621), Apple is ready to adopt
Windows NT as its server OS:
"Apple supporting Windows? Once unthinkable, that notion is nearing reality. In a clear sign of a major cultural
shift at Apple Computer, the company is working to port Microsoft's Windows NT operating system to its line of
network servers, say Apple officials."
"Marco Landi, Apple's newly appointed chief operating officer, summed up the new philosophy last week at PC
Expo in New York: 'The glory is not in selling the Mac. The glory is in making a profit.'"
Is Apple saying that it is NOT a "MacIntosh or die" company?
"Kim Brown, an analyst at Dataquest Inc. in San Jose, Calif. [said] 'By supporting NT, Apple is saying they're
finally going to join the real world and not screw around anymore.'"
It has taken them long enough! Apple finally realizes that it has no time to "screw around" with Copland, much
less Gershwin. NT is here, now and robust. Apple needs to sell products NOW.
"Apple old-timers had better get used to it. Since Amelio took the helm at the company in February, he has cleaned
house with a new management team bent on shedding Apple's loner image. On June 18, Amelio, Landi, and other Apple
executives dined with Microsoft chairman Bill Gates during PC Expo. "We discussed how we can evolve, and how we
can get out of the antagonistic situation that has been created in the past,"
But can the Mac faithful get used to Apple executives dining with Gates? Heck, Michael Spindler wouldn't even
return Gates' phone call. Things do change fast in the world of computing, don't it? It appears that Apple (and
Spindler) has failed miserably trying to kick Gates' butt, and must now resort to kissing it. He he he.
But is it too little too late?
"'They're going to get their lunch eaten if they try to sell NT,' says Pieter Hartsook, editor of the Hartsook
Letter in Alameda, Calif. 'Right now, the state-of-the-art NT server box has four Pentium [Pro] processors, while
the Apple Network Server only goes up to two processors. Anything from Apple is going to be more expensive and
less capable.'"
No kidding, may be Apple is trying to emulate the basketball player Hakeem Olajuwon, who said in a commercial that
he was going to "treat" (when he actually meant "eat") the Olympics athletes for lunch. I hope Apple has as big a
credit account as Olajuwon. :)
John Millington
[Apple supposedly going to work with DozeNT servers]
Ready for my Ridiculous and Totally Speculative Conspiracy Theory
Of The Week? Yes? Good!
For the sake of the argument, let's hypothesize that the rumor is true.
The Good News
-------------
I've got this funny idea about Apple switching to NT servers. In order
to do that, they have to write some client-side code, to talk to the NT
server, right?
Ok... now, what advantages does NT server have over other servers?
Speed? No. Strike one.
Reliability? Strike two!
Management? Strike three, but keep trying anyway...
Ziff-Davis kiss marks on its ass? Ding! Keep going!
It's the "standard"? Ding! We have a winner!
The funny thing about NT server being a "standard" is that it actually
really *IS* a standard. NT server is just another implementation of the
SMB networking protocol, which is openly documented and also used by
some other servers, such as IBM Warp Server and Samba.
If Apple writes a SMB client, then won't it also be able to talk to Warp
and Samba servers? Yup. Apple adding SMB networking support to the Mac is
a _good_ thing that will brings lots of machines closer together. It may
look like it somehow hands a victory over to NT, but it actually benefits
everyone else too. For example, your Linux box will be able to serve files
to your Mac, and vice-versa. (How the heck would they deal with resource
forks? Beats the hell out of me...)
The Bad News
------------
Open standards allow for competition on reliability and performance, so
it is not in MS' general interest for the public to learn that they can
easily swap out their NT server with a Warp/Samba/other server (thereby
gaining some obvious advantages without sacrificing compatability).
Word eventually gets out, though.
So, unfortunately, one of MS's upcoming moves will have to be to change
"Windows Networking" to a new proprietary and undocumented system, kinda
like Netware's NCP. Look forward for new versions of NT to "extend" *cough*
or otherwise obscure SMB, and prevent interoperability between competing
products. They'll probably invent this new "technology" and herald it with
some kewl buzzname. (e.g. "Microsoft 32-bit Multimedia Internetworking"
has a nice ring to it.) Of course, it'll really just be SMB with new
undocumented block types (possibly scrambled to prevent reverse-engineering?
Nah, I'm being _too_ paranoid...).
As other companies support standard SMB, NT will _have_ to leave standard
SMB (ironically the product's best feature) in order to survive in their
niche (taking advantage of suckers). When they do that, the world will get
a little more complexicated.
Yog-Sothoth Neblod Zin,
John Millington
Hey, if getting into a "my computer is better than yours" argument is
forbidden, then may be an argument over whose crystal ball is shinyest?
Erik Blomquist
wrote:
:Has Apple thrown in the towel, conceding defeat in the war of the OSes?
Is Apple singing the familiar tune "If
:you can't beat them, join them?"
:
:According to the following story
(http://techweb.cmp.com/iw/current/hotnew.htm#st1a_621), Apple is ready to
adopt
:Windows NT as its server OS:
:
:"Apple supporting Windows? Once unthinkable, that notion is nearing
reality. In a clear sign of a major cultural
:shift at Apple Computer, the company is working to port Microsoft's
Windows NT operating system to its line of
:network servers, say Apple officials."
:
:It has taken them long enough! Apple finally realizes that it has no time
to "screw around" with Copland, much
:less Gershwin. NT is here, now and robust. Apple needs to sell products NOW.
:
The Apple Network Servers the article refers to are _not_ Macintoshes, and
as such, were never intended to run the MacOS (7, 8 or 9). They are UNIX
based, currently available only with a version of IBM's AIX. It seems
that Apple is planning to offer Windows as an option on these machines,
not trying to replace MacOS with it. Big deal.
-Erik
Koro
wrote:
> The Good News
> -------------
LINUX can *already* do that... well, it doesn't matter.
> The Bad News
> ------------
> Open standards allow for competition on reliability and performance, so
> it is not in MS' general interest for the public to learn that they can
> easily swap out their NT server with a Warp/Samba/other server (thereby
> gaining some obvious advantages without sacrificing compatability).
> Word eventually gets out, though.
Eventually. But by that time, it's usually too late...
Actually, scratch the above comment. That only applies to the mass
public. The people who run servers and the lot are actually
*educated* in the ways of their computer. They are too smart to fall
for that crap. It's like M$ trying to compete with JAVA with thier
ActiveX. JAVA is based on C++ and ActiveX is based on
Windows_OLE_type_of_things_that_take_a_300_column_editer_to_veiw.
Duhhh I wonder which one's easier to use?
The only thing we have to fear is those that are suseptable to
billions of dollars in marketing. Managers who believe the hype (like
the announcement that we are talking about now), and the mass public,
who's already sold.
> So, unfortunately, one of MS's upcoming moves will have to be to change
> "Windows Networking" to a new proprietary and undocumented system, kinda
> like Netware's NCP. Look forward for new versions of NT to "extend" *cough*
> or otherwise obscure SMB, and prevent interoperability between competing
> products. They'll probably invent this new "technology" and herald it with
> some kewl buzzname. (e.g. "Microsoft 32-bit Multimedia Internetworking"
> has a nice ring to it.) Of course, it'll really just be SMB with new
> undocumented block types (possibly scrambled to prevent reverse-engineering?
> Nah, I'm being _too_ paranoid...).
They've done it before and they'll do it again.
> As other companies support standard SMB, NT will _have_ to leave standard
> SMB (ironically the product's best feature) in order to survive in their
> niche (taking advantage of suckers). When they do that, the world will get
> a little more complexicated.
I'm going to set my computer up to send me this message in 3 years
just to see if your predictions are right.
> Hey, if getting into a "my computer is better than yours" argument is
> forbidden, then may be an argument over whose crystal ball is shinyest?
Why not.... my crystal ball is pre-emptively shiny. My crystal ball
shines at 64 while your's still shines at 32; And your ball doesn't
even have many types of compatible wax that can shine at 32, just 16,
so your ball isn't as shiny as it could be... you'd have to buy new
wax that costs more to acheive that. Never mind, it's too weird.
KORO
Andrew Fremantle
slo...@mack.rt66.com (John Millington) wrote:
>The Good News
>-------------
>The Bad News
>------------
>Open standards allow for competition on reliability and performance, so
>it is not in MS' general interest for the public to learn that they can
>easily swap out their NT server with a Warp/Samba/other server (thereby
>gaining some obvious advantages without sacrificing compatability).
>Word eventually gets out, though.
>So, unfortunately, one of MS's upcoming moves will have to be to change
>"Windows Networking" to a new proprietary and undocumented system, kinda
>like Netware's NCP. Look forward for new versions of NT to "extend" *cough*
>or otherwise obscure SMB, and prevent interoperability between competing
>products. They'll probably invent this new "technology" and herald it with
>some kewl buzzname. (e.g. "Microsoft 32-bit Multimedia Internetworking"
>has a nice ring to it.) Of course, it'll really just be SMB with new
>undocumented block types (possibly scrambled to prevent reverse-engineering?
>Nah, I'm being _too_ paranoid...).
>As other companies support standard SMB, NT will _have_ to leave standard
>SMB (ironically the product's best feature) in order to survive in their
>niche (taking advantage of suckers). When they do that, the world will get
>a little more complexicated.
> Yog-Sothoth Neblod Zin,
> John Millington
>Hey, if getting into a "my computer is better than yours" argument is
>forbidden, then may be an argument over whose crystal ball is shinyest?
I have only one objection to the previous statements :
Wiindoze NT is fairly reliable.. It's the most stable of all the
Windows product line, and runs completly 32 bit. I would rather have,
say, a LINUX server, but NT doesen't get nailed for reliability... I
very much agree that it does get nailed for speed, tho
IMHO
Sky...@Smartt.com
RIP First Ammendment
"Fate protects fools, little children, and ships named Enterprise"
Maury Markowitz
In article <erikb-27069...@news1.radix.net>, er...@radix.net (Erik
Blomquist) wrote:
> The Apple Network Servers the article refers to are _not_ Macintoshes, and
> as such, were never intended to run the MacOS (7, 8 or 9). They are UNIX
> based, currently available only with a version of IBM's AIX. It seems
> that Apple is planning to offer Windows as an option on these machines,
> not trying to replace MacOS with it. Big deal.
More to the point, Apple has flatly denied the rumor.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
> > The funny thing about NT server being a "standard" is that it actually
> > really *IS* a standard. NT server is just another implementation of the
> > SMB networking protocol, which is openly documented and also used by
> > some other servers, such as IBM Warp Server and Samba
Colour me newbish, but SMB?
Maury
Ravi K. Swamy
In article <maury-02079...@194.125.2.242>,
Maury Markowitz <ma...@softarc.com> wrote:
>In article <4qvntj$o...@news.aimnet.com>, ksa...@easyaccess.com (Koro) wrote:
>
>> > really *IS* a standard. NT server is just another implementation of the
>> > SMB networking protocol, which is openly documented and also used by
>
> Colour me newbish, but SMB?
I checked my Crayola supercomputer but couldn't find that one
but anyway it's "Session Management Block."
Ravi
--
Ravi K. Swamy http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rkswamy/www/
rks...@eos.ncsu.edu ro...@genom.com