Windows NT or Netware... Which one should I pick?
Mark Siler
I currently manage three Novell Netware 3.12 file servers. I'm considering
switching to Windows NT Server 4.0. We are thinking about putting in our
own Internet Server and I was thinking that it would be nice to have NT
throughout the company. I have to go to upper management cost justify the
change. Therefore my question….
Can anyone give me some good compelling, cost justifying reasons to switch
from Netware 3.12 to Windows NT?
Please reply to si...@atlantic.net
Thanks!
Mark
Garry Coats
There is a white paper from M$ that goes into lots of manager lingo
for what you want to do. The ROI is based on easier admin, which is
soft dollar only. There are no really super hard dollar ROI other than
you are on your way to a "single support source" for your NOS and
Apps. Also, M$ has several hundred people on NT's development squad.
If all this good stuff fails, go show your boss(es) the stock on M$
vs. Novell and tell them you fear for their and your future. Don't
tell them about Novell's Java direction; that may save them. ;-)
The G-Man
Steven
Go with NT! M$ (assumed Microsoft something) is big enough to
maintain its stay. I'm in a shop in which we running 6 NT servers
(4.0) and 1 Netware server (3.12) and that Novell server causes so
many darn headaches. I'm sure it wouldn't balk if it were by itself
in this shop. However, we are a Microsoft shop and by the end of '97
Netware will be history.
Bye
On Mon, 17 Mar 1997 00:16:24 GMT, ^g^o^c@s^c^s^n.n^e^t^ (Garry Coats)
wrote:
Mark Edwards
In article <3336d010...@news.fastlane.net>, Steven
<tech...@mail.geocities.com> writes
>Go with NT! M$ (assumed Microsoft something) is big enough to
>maintain its stay. I'm in a shop in which we running 6 NT servers
>(4.0) and 1 Netware server (3.12) and that Novell server causes so
>many darn headaches. I'm sure it wouldn't balk if it were by itself
>in this shop. However, we are a Microsoft shop and by the end of '97
>Netware will be history.
>
the many desperate requests for help on a very wide range of problems in
this newsgroup I'm not sure NT4 is such a good thing. Don't get me
wrong. I'd like to think it was all singing all dancing but....
>>>
>>>Can anyone give me some good compelling, cost justifying reasons to switch
>>>from Netware 3.12 to Windows NT?
--
Mark Edwards.
win...@mindspring.com
I work in a very large organization, with hundreds of fileservers.
For us, NT is just too simplistic for what we need. Netware 4.11 is
what we use now, and it too, certainly has its weaknesses, but our
solution is to use a hybrid: NT for specific applications servers,
Netware for the majority of our users home servers.
It works well.
Brian
On Mon, 24 Mar 1997 19:07:53 GMT, tech...@mail.geocities.com
(Steven) wrote:
>Go with NT! M$ (assumed Microsoft something) is big enough to
>maintain its stay. I'm in a shop in which we running 6 NT servers
>(4.0) and 1 Netware server (3.12) and that Novell server causes so
>many darn headaches. I'm sure it wouldn't balk if it were by itself
>in this shop. However, we are a Microsoft shop and by the end of '97
>Netware will be history.
>
>Bye
>
>
>On Mon, 17 Mar 1997 00:16:24 GMT, ^g^o^c@s^c^s^n.n^e^t^ (Garry Coats)
>wrote:
>
>>There is a white paper from M$ that goes into lots of manager lingo
>>for what you want to do. The ROI is based on easier admin, which is
>>soft dollar only. There are no really super hard dollar ROI other than
>>you are on your way to a "single support source" for your NOS and
>>Apps. Also, M$ has several hundred people on NT's development squad.
>>If all this good stuff fails, go show your boss(es) the stock on M$
>>vs. Novell and tell them you fear for their and your future. Don't
>>tell them about Novell's Java direction; that may save them. ;-)
>>The G-Man
>>
>>On 13 Mar 1997 14:07:19 GMT, "Mark Siler" <si...@atlantic.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I currently manage three Novell Netware 3.12 file servers. I'm considering
>>>switching to Windows NT Server 4.0. We are thinking about putting in our
>>>own Internet Server and I was thinking that it would be nice to have NT
>>>throughout the company. I have to go to upper management cost justify the
>>>change. Therefore my question….
>>>
>>>Can anyone give me some good compelling, cost justifying reasons to switch
>>>from Netware 3.12 to Windows NT?
>>>
Jan Nielsen
Biased counterpoints interspersed:
Steven <tech...@mail.geocities.com> wrote in article
<3336d010...@news.fastlane.net>...
> Go with NT! M$ (assumed Microsoft something) is big enough to
> maintain its stay. I'm in a shop in which we running 6 NT servers
> (4.0) and 1 Netware server (3.12) and that Novell server causes so
> many darn headaches. I'm sure it wouldn't balk if it were by itself
> in this shop.
Novell is dedicated to resolving all problems related to our products. I
would suggest you talk with your Novell reseller for your technical support
options.
> However, we are a Microsoft shop and by the end of '97 Netware will be
history.
Sad to hear that.
> >There is a white paper from M$ that goes into lots of manager lingo
> >for what you want to do. The ROI is based on easier admin, which is
> >soft dollar only. There are no really super hard dollar ROI other than
> >you are on your way to a "single support source" for your NOS and
> >Apps.
"Ease of administration" is often confused with user interface (UI)
familiarity. While UI familarity does help your "well-being" as you learn
how to administer servers, administration of those servers is much more
than a UI issue. Most large companies use a heterogeneous server
enviroment where Novell's servers form the backbone of the enterprise.
There are two reasons for this: multiple server administration costs are
significantly reduced with a sound directory service and server performance
is critical. Novell's servers are unsurpassed in both performance and
multi-server administration capabilities on the Intel platform.
> >If all this good stuff fails, go show your boss(es) the stock on M$
> >vs. Novell and tell them you fear for their and your future. Don't
> >tell them about Novell's Java direction; that may save them. ;-)
> >The G-Man
> >
Unfortunately, bosses have a way of always finding out the interesting
information at review time. ;)
> >On 13 Mar 1997 14:07:19 GMT, "Mark Siler" <si...@atlantic.net> wrote:
> >
> >>I currently manage three Novell Netware 3.12 file servers. I'm
considering
> >>switching to Windows NT Server 4.0. We are thinking about putting in
our
> >>own Internet Server and I was thinking that it would be nice to have NT
> >>throughout the company. I have to go to upper management cost justify
the
> >>change. Therefore my question….
> >>
> >>Can anyone give me some good compelling, cost justifying reasons to
switch
> >>from Netware 3.12 to Windows NT?
> >>
> >>Please reply to si...@atlantic.net
> >>
> >>Thanks!
> >>Mark
Jan Nielsen
jsni...@novell.com
Software Engineer
Java Group
Novell, Inc.
Dave Crabbe
Having been weaned on MS software and clients s/w I had to be dragged
kicking and screaming
into Novell land. I've used NT3.5x and now NT4 and have some pretty
good experience administering NetWare 3x. There is no doubt in my mind
that:
NT is not a *real* server platform. I am amazed that people actually use
it for this.
With 200 users there is no way we could even consider a server that had
no file
allocation quotas. One user (student) would easily render your network
inoperable. But there are many other problems with NT
- difficult to remotely admin (I admit ignorance on this issue)
- printing subsystem is flaky and has some serious bugs. SP2 fixed
some but not all.
- no accounting system built in so not easy to add stuff like
printer accounting
- can't map past a share name. Makes it difficult to map users home
directories at times
- creates directories that administrators can't get to unless they take
possession. A little extreme.
- default to give permissions to everyone. Easy to create security
holes.
- users shouldn't be able to see shares they can't access. (putting $
after
every user share is not a solution)
- too many releases. NT5 is rumoured to be out soon. Impossible to
train
and maintain personel.
- RAS / Modem install flaky on my system and hung it several times.
- SP2 is too unstable.
- overall NT4 is too unstable.
Admittedly, it has some nice toys and can run applications, but no one
wants
to go to their server and run WORD when 100 users are accessing the
system.
I am really amazed that NT has gotten this much market share. Novell
needs
to come out of Steath mode.
On the other hand Novells Win95 client hasn't been my favorite and is
every
bit as unstable as NT4. Maybe Windows is just to complex??
Man, give me a NetWare 3x server with ease of remote administration,
simple
print queue / server set up, etc. anyday, for a server application.
WinNT
is still a client application in my eyes.
Maybe NT5 will get it right ... but it just keeps getting more complex.
Dave
Admin / Instructor
Nova Scotia Community College
Mike Putz
Dave Crabbe wrote:
> =
> Having been weaned on MS software and clients s/w I had to be dragged
> kicking and screaming
> into Novell land. I've used NT3.5x and now NT4 and have some pretty
> good experience administering NetWare 3x. There is no doubt in my mind
> that:
> =
> NT is not a *real* server platform. I am amazed that people actually us=
e
> it for this.
> With 200 users there is no way we could even consider a server that had=
> no file
> allocation quotas. One user (student) would easily render your network
> inoperable. But there are many other problems with NT
> - difficult to remotely admin (I admit ignorance on this issue)
> - printing subsystem is flaky and has some serious bugs. SP2 fixed
> some but not all.
> - no accounting system built in so not easy to add stuff like
> printer accounting
> - can't map past a share name. Makes it difficult to map users home
> directories at times
> - creates directories that administrators can't get to unless they tak=
e
> possession. A little extreme.
> - default to give permissions to everyone. Easy to create security
> holes.
> - users shouldn't be able to see shares they can't access. (putting $
> after
> every user share is not a solution)
> - too many releases. NT5 is rumoured to be out soon. Impossible to
> train
> and maintain personel.
> - RAS / Modem install flaky on my system and hung it several times.
> - SP2 is too unstable.
> - overall NT4 is too unstable.
> =
> Admittedly, it has some nice toys and can run applications, but no one
> wants
> to go to their server and run WORD when 100 users are accessing the
> system.
> =
> I am really amazed that NT has gotten this much market share. Novell
> needs
> to come out of Steath mode.
> =
> On the other hand Novells Win95 client hasn't been my favorite and is
> every
> bit as unstable as NT4. Maybe Windows is just to complex??
> =
> Man, give me a NetWare 3x server with ease of remote administration,
> simple
> print queue / server set up, etc. anyday, for a server application.
> WinNT
> is still a client application in my eyes.
> =
> Maybe NT5 will get it right ... but it just keeps getting more complex.=
> =
> Dave
> Admin / Instructor
> Nova Scotia Community College
> =
> > >>I currently manage three Novell Netware 3.12 file servers. I'm con=
sidering
> > >>switching to Windows NT Server 4.0. We are thinking about putting =
in our
> > >>own Internet Server and I was thinking that it would be nice to hav=
e NT
> > >>throughout the company. I have to go to upper management cost just=
ify the
> > >>change. Therefore my question=85.
> > >>
> > >>Can anyone give me some good compelling, cost justifying reasons to=
switch
> > >>from Netware 3.12 to Windows NT?
I'm an Administrator for a 250 user Netware 3.12 Server. After
attending the Windows NT Server class I opted to stick with Novell. I
find the administration on Netware straight forward and simple. =
However, I did purchase Windows NT workstations to run on the Novell
server! Running NT solved a lot of security/memory problems I was
having with my users.
Michael
Network Admin
Motorola
rtp...@email.sps.mot.com
Martin Hilger
Hi!
Does anybody know a tool (running as a service) on NT 4.0 workstation
that does remote printing (servicing our centrally managed Novell
printqueues)?
We have used rprinter by Novell and IQS by Infinite (a good product) for
our DOS and Windows 16-Bit workstations but up to now we couldn't find a
tool that would let us service NetWare print queues.
Any hint to appreciated!
Martin Hilger
KPMG Austria
John Silvia
Frankly guys, I think that Netware and NT both have their strengths and
weakneses and they should be analyzed based on them.
If you run a non-internet shop, want a secure OS that is a pain to route,
fairly secure and that can survive through anything, go with Netware 3.12.
If you need remote access, slightly less reliable OS, better security,
Internet support and such, then NT is a hands down winner.
Both have their ups and downs from a support side -- I know and use both
and I have found that in my Internet shop, having an accounting system that
is unreachable is a breath of fresh air.
Also, as a side note, Novell needs a LOT less machine per user than NT
does. I can server 50 people nicely on a 16 megabyte Novell box. 32
megabyte Novell is class.
On an NT server, 32 megabytes is barely enough to hold the OS. Add 50
users and you'll have a working machine, but no room for disk caching.
The bottom line with NT is that it's bigger (has a GUI) and it's got a
better all around connectivity thing. Novell is more tempermental in how
it connects, but that means that security of the connection is tight.
Last item, if you're going to have an DOS only workstations, then go
Novell. NT's DOS client leaves about 384k of ram after booting DOS.
Mark Edwards <Ma...@dymp-mrk.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<Ts9+PFAt...@dymp-mrk.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <3336d010...@news.fastlane.net>, Steven
> <tech...@mail.geocities.com> writes
> >Go with NT! M$ (assumed Microsoft something) is big enough to
> >maintain its stay. I'm in a shop in which we running 6 NT servers
> >(4.0) and 1 Netware server (3.12) and that Novell server causes so
> >many darn headaches. I'm sure it wouldn't balk if it were by itself
> >in this shop. However, we are a Microsoft shop and by the end of '97
> >Netware will be history.
> >
> This fact just might suggest that you are a little biased. Judging by
> the many desperate requests for help on a very wide range of problems in
> this newsgroup I'm not sure NT4 is such a good thing. Don't get me
> wrong. I'd like to think it was all singing all dancing but....
>
> >>>
> >>>Can anyone give me some good compelling, cost justifying reasons to
switch
> >>>from Netware 3.12 to Windows NT?
>
> --
> Mark Edwards.
>
ripcord
And if you wanat all that is found below... go with IntranetWare (Novell
4.11)... And let us not leave out Winframe...
sorry.. had to get into this discussion... I have two major differences
to add, of course, in my opinion :
NT is a lot easier to administer and maintain... I think this is
completely due to it being visual and the fact that it is seems easier
to rememeber operations in a visual environment.
I think a big decision factor for a machine if its role is going to be
primarliy a file server box, is the size of your LAN. (I think Novell is
better over a WAN). If you have two identical machines, one loaded with
NetWare, and one with NT Server, you could probably push to 1/3 more
worstations with Netware than NT without any efficency loss, whereas you
would see a severe loss with adding more to NT...
Again.. these are my opinions and experiences...
-=Jed=-
Dave Crabbe
> NT is a lot easier to administer and maintain... I think this is
> completely due to it being visual and the fact that it is seems easier
> to rememeber operations in a visual environment.
And I think this is the perception about NT and why it is perceived as
a better networking server. But this is not the case. I totally agree
that the GUI is an easier system to use. It is easier to use than not
having
to remember "commands" or a mostly text based system. However NT is not,
in my experience easier to administer.
First, you are tied to the console. While you can do some stuff
remotely,
Netware can ONLY be administered remotely. No climbing inside your
closet
and hacking at the keyboard. Most admins do not want their server
touched
and so it is usually hidden away and physically secure. (Of course
RCONSOLE
does lessen security).
I find NT confusing at times even though it's GUI. All of us have gone
through
the holy grail search ... "Man, I know that option is hiding in a menu
somewhere ...
where did I see that"? ... 15 minutes later ....
As a minimalist and an admirer of simplicity I like NetWare 3x more each
time I use it. (No, I don't like DOS ...)
I would think most admins who constantly use NetWare for 100+ users
would
admire and prefer NetWare and the better security and robustness it
delivers as a pure file server.
Dave
Mark Edwards
In article <3342FE...@turbowp.com>, ripcord <rip...@turbowp.com>
writes
>And if you wanat all that is found below... go with IntranetWare (Novell
>4.11)... And let us not leave out Winframe...
>
>sorry.. had to get into this discussion... I have two major differences
>to add, of course, in my opinion :
>
>completely due to it being visual and the fact that it is seems easier
>to rememeber operations in a visual environment.
>
>primarliy a file server box, is the size of your LAN. (I think Novell is
>better over a WAN). If you have two identical machines, one loaded with
>NetWare, and one with NT Server, you could probably push to 1/3 more
>worstations with Netware than NT without any efficency loss, whereas you
>would see a severe loss with adding more to NT...
>
>Again.. these are my opinions and experiences...
>
If I were to set up a network comprising two rooms near each other with
16PCs in each i.e total 32 workstations would NT be less efficient or is
this really small fry in the network world.
--
Mark Edwards.
Mark Edwards
In article <3343A8...@burridge.nscc.ns.ca>, Dave Crabbe
<crab...@burridge.nscc.ns.ca> writes
>
>I would think most admins who constantly use NetWare for 100+ users
>would
>admire and prefer NetWare and the better security and robustness it
>delivers as a pure file server.
How well does Novell Netware 4.11 (or Intranetware) deal with a network
with a server (Pentium with 32Meg RAM) and maybe workstations which
only have WIN95 and/or Win4Workgroups and need to download say Word6 or
Excell from the server as well as store pupils files on a secure section
of the server's HDD with restricted HDD space per pupil?
--
Mark Edwards.
C.J. Spaans
If you not using any client/server-technologie then go novell 4.11, because
it can do te same as NT 4.0 and even better. Novell 4.11 is Intranet ready,
supports NDS (its the same as GDS in NT 5.0) and it cost your less if you
buy a new server, because Novell wil work with less than NT 4.0. And even
more importent Novell's security is better than from NT 4.0.
Thanks,
C.J. Spaans
Steven <tech...@mail.geocities.com> schreef in artikel
<3336d010...@news.fastlane.net>...
> Go with NT! M$ (assumed Microsoft something) is big enough to
> maintain its stay. I'm in a shop in which we running 6 NT servers
> (4.0) and 1 Netware server (3.12) and that Novell server causes so
> many darn headaches. I'm sure it wouldn't balk if it were by itself
> in this shop. However, we are a Microsoft shop and by the end of '97
> Netware will be history.
>
> Bye
>
>
> On Mon, 17 Mar 1997 00:16:24 GMT, ^g^o^c@s^c^s^n.n^e^t^ (Garry Coats)
> wrote:
>
> >There is a white paper from M$ that goes into lots of manager lingo
> >for what you want to do. The ROI is based on easier admin, which is
> >soft dollar only. There are no really super hard dollar ROI other than
> >you are on your way to a "single support source" for your NOS and
> >Apps. Also, M$ has several hundred people on NT's development squad.
> >If all this good stuff fails, go show your boss(es) the stock on M$
> >vs. Novell and tell them you fear for their and your future. Don't
> >tell them about Novell's Java direction; that may save them. ;-)
> >The G-Man
> >
> >On 13 Mar 1997 14:07:19 GMT, "Mark Siler" <si...@atlantic.net> wrote:
> >
> >>I currently manage three Novell Netware 3.12 file servers. I'm
considering
> >>switching to Windows NT Server 4.0. We are thinking about putting in
our
> >>own Internet Server and I was thinking that it would be nice to have NT
> >>throughout the company. I have to go to upper management cost justify
the
> >>change. Therefore my question….
> >>
> >>Can anyone give me some good compelling, cost justifying reasons to
switch
> >>from Netware 3.12 to Windows NT?
> >>
Mike
C.J. Spaans wrote:
Thanks,
C.J. Spaans
You must be kidding me. I am a MCSE and a MCNE and let me tell you
NT4.0
is far more a headache than Netware 4.11. Novell's Administration is 10
times that of NT. You can't even compair the two. If you are looking for
a scalible NOS go with Netware. If you have one or two servers like
these other guys and don't expect to grow in this life time go with NT.
I know for a fact that no one can come up with anything that would make
me switch my Netware servers to NT. NT is a desktop OS not a NOS.
Domains DON'T WORK!!! NDS is the way to go! Oh and yes I know that MS is
coming out with there version of Directory Services. So do you really
think that there first release will be stable? Let me remind you of
Microsofts first release of NT 3.1 Advanced Server. TRASH WAS'T IT. NT's
release of DS will not be any good for several releases (couple of
years.).
AND IF YOU THINK YOU CAN COME UP WITH ANY FACTS THAT NT IS A BETTER NOS
IN ANYWAY PLEASE E-MAIL ME. I'D LOVE TO CHAT.
Dave Crabbe
Mark Edwards wrote:
> For an unbiased report somebody (I think on this newsgroup) gave me this
> to look at. It really was informative.
>
> http://www.currid.com/tackett/networld007.html
This is the problem I have with the press and with marketing. Reading
this report you think that NT and Netware and pretty close. However,
this is soooooo far from the truth. I wonder if these are just
journalists, or what, 'cause it doesn't seem like they do system
admin day in and day out. What you need are opinions of hard core
sys admins.
I mean how can a NOS that can't have file quotas for users even be
considered
a NOS (in NT). This means one little user can fill your entire volume!
This
is never mentioned in the review 'cause the reviewer is not qualified to
probably review the product.
In the admin dept. NT is given high marks. Most servers are locked away
and
all admin is done remotely ... at least in my small experience with
them. NT
remote admin in NetWare 3 is superb. NT has very limited services in
this
regard.
So I don't know ... maybe NT has some features that elude me, but for
trench-
level use, I just don't see it.
Dave
Dave Crabbe
Mike wrote:
> NT4.0
> is far more a headache than Netware 4.11.
Yes .. fully agree.
> I know for a fact that no one can come up with anything that would make
> me switch my Netware servers to NT.
Me Neither except for playing with MS's offerings.
> NT is a desktop OS not a NOS.
I can't believe that MS has been able to pull this wool over
people's eyes. It has a good client and NT Workstation may
be excellent, but it is NOT a real NOS yet.
> AND IF YOU THINK YOU CAN COME UP WITH ANY FACTS THAT NT IS A BETTER NOS
> IN ANYWAY PLEASE E-MAIL ME. I'D LOVE TO CHAT.
Yeah, I kinda agree. I'm a much greener admin, but I am amazed people
use it for a NOS. Sort of trying to hammer the square peg into the round
hole. You can do it with enough effort and enough tools, but why bother?
I only present these musings 'cause I was so astounded at how
inept NT4 was for my networking needs and how much time I
spent learning that it was inept.
Dave
Full-time Instructor / Part-time admin
N.S. Community College
Royal Miller
John Silvia wrote:
>
> Frankly guys, I think that Netware and NT both have their strengths and
> weakneses and they should be analyzed based on them.
>
> If you run a non-internet shop, want a secure OS that is a pain to route,
> fairly secure and that can survive through anything, go with Netware 3.12.
>
> If you need remote access, slightly less reliable OS, better security,
> Internet support and such, then NT is a hands down winner.
>
> Both have their ups and downs from a support side -- I know and use both
> and I have found that in my Internet shop, having an accounting system that
> is unreachable is a breath of fresh air.
>
> Also, as a side note, Novell needs a LOT less machine per user than NT
> does. I can server 50 people nicely on a 16 megabyte Novell box. 32
> megabyte Novell is class.
>
> On an NT server, 32 megabytes is barely enough to hold the OS. Add 50
> users and you'll have a working machine, but no room for disk caching.
>
> The bottom line with NT is that it's bigger (has a GUI) and it's got a
> better all around connectivity thing. Novell is more tempermental in how
> it connects, but that means that security of the connection is tight.
>
> Last item, if you're going to have an DOS only workstations, then go
> Novell. NT's DOS client leaves about 384k of ram after booting DOS.
>
> Mark Edwards <Ma...@dymp-mrk.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> <Ts9+PFAt...@dymp-mrk.demon.co.uk>...
> > In article <3336d010...@news.fastlane.net>, Steven
> > <tech...@mail.geocities.com> writes
> > >maintain its stay. I'm in a shop in which we running 6 NT servers
> > >(4.0) and 1 Netware server (3.12) and that Novell server causes so
> > >many darn headaches. I'm sure it wouldn't balk if it were by itself
> > >in this shop. However, we are a Microsoft shop and by the end of '97
> > >Netware will be history.
> > >
> > the many desperate requests for help on a very wide range of problems in
> > this newsgroup I'm not sure NT4 is such a good thing. Don't get me
> > wrong. I'd like to think it was all singing all dancing but....
> >
> > >>>
> switch
> > >>>from Netware 3.12 to Windows NT?
> >
> > Mark Edwards.
> >
UNtrue for the 384k of memory for dos client
If you know what you are doing with EMM386 you
can have aprox. 570k for MS Network and 525 when
using TCP/IP. I have done it many times.
R Miller
Steve Shane
Dave,
> > NT is a desktop OS not a NOS.
>
> I can't believe that MS has been able to pull this wool over
> people's eyes. It has a good client and NT Workstation may
> be excellent, but it is NOT a real NOS yet.
In whose eyes?
> Yeah, I kinda agree. I'm a much greener admin, but I am amazed people
> use it for a NOS. Sort of trying to hammer the square peg into the round
> hole. You can do it with enough effort and enough tools, but why bother?
>
> I only present these musings 'cause I was so astounded at how
> inept NT4 was for my networking needs and how much time I
> spent learning that it was inept.
I didn't realize that anyone expected any current software to be adept at
reconizing a users needs. I know that software has come a long way and real
time/logic thing is something that is being worked on, but to expect it in
current software? I don't think so.
I've been running NT since beta of 3.1, have grown with it and all the
improvements. I realize that it is a GUI with all its attendent hardware
needs. It is 32bit not the 16bit of the old reliable Netware. Nt is less
expensive, has more "free" utils built in, and does operate as an
Applications server along with everything else. (100bT best for that).
After using this (NT) for the amount of time I have spent I shudder
everytime I have to deal with a Novell server. It is too weak.
I will agree that Novell 3.xx was quite good in its day, and pretty solid
for what it does do, but remember the low end super buggy software that
they had that WFW and Lanastic out performed and beat in every way?
But NT inept? I hardly think so.
For me (and my clients) NT does far more than Novell can ever do, and for
less. It has a bright and growing future. Is solid, secure etc.
Don't even consider that I am knocking the quality of Novell or its support
of its products. I just consider NT to be the Cad and Novell to be the
Buick.
>
> Dave
> Full-time Instructor / Part-time admin
> N.S. Community College
Steve
Smart enough to not be in the collegiate environment.
Royal Miller
Those who can do - DO
Those who can't do - Teach
Those who can't Teach - Teach Gym
Read this in cartoon somewhere
Royal
James
> > I can't believe that MS has been able to pull this wool over
> > people's eyes. It has a good client and NT Workstation may
> > be excellent, but it is NOT a real NOS yet.
>
> In whose eyes?
>
> > Yeah, I kinda agree. I'm a much greener admin, but I am amazed people
> > use it for a NOS. Sort of trying to hammer the square peg into the
round
> > hole. You can do it with enough effort and enough tools, but why
bother?
> >
> > I only present these musings 'cause I was so astounded at how
> > inept NT4 was for my networking needs and how much time I
> > spent learning that it was inept.
Its a matter of personal preference, but i would like to say that i've used
netware for many years, and have switched over to NT just because it is so
much easier to use. its one less system i have to learn how to use, since
its so much similar to NT workstation and win95. people dont want to hire
an expensive sys admin when they can run thier whole network themselves
like i do, especially on smaller networks who have entirely windows
clients. theres no reason you cant have a nice user-friendly interface on
your server like you do on workstation computers... instead of having to
learn a TOTALLY different OS like novell, with all the different quirks and
commands and concepts.
Mike
Steve Shane wrote:
Dave,
> > NT is a desktop OS not a NOS.
>
> I can't believe that MS has been able to pull this wool over
> people's eyes. It has a good client and NT Workstation may
> be excellent, but it is NOT a real NOS yet.
In whose eyes?
> Yeah, I kinda agree. I'm a much greener admin, but I am amazed
people
> use it for a NOS. Sort of trying to hammer the square peg into the
round
> hole. You can do it with enough effort and enough tools, but why
bother?
>
> I only present these musings 'cause I was so astounded at how
> inept NT4 was for my networking needs and how much time I
> spent learning that it was inept.
I didn't realize that anyone expected any current software to be
LISTEN - I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT NETWARE 3.12. EVEN THOUGH IT IS
BETTER THAN NT 4.0. NETWARE 4.11 WILL OUT PERFORM NT. IT IS A KNOWN
FACT THAT NETWARE'S NCP IS FASTER AND MORE EFFICENT THAN
MICROSOFT'S SMB. STEVE HAVE YOU EVER ADMINISTERED A NOVELL
ENVIRONMENT? ITS OBVIOUS THAT YOU HAVE NOT. FIRST OF ALL NETWARE IS
NOT A 16BIT NOS! ALSO I THINK THAT YOU SHOULD START READING TRADE
PUBLICATIONS, BECAUSE YOUR BEHIND THE TIMES. NETWARE AND NOVELL
DIRECTORY SERVICES ARE MUCH MORE ROBUST AND SCALIBLE THAN NT WITH
DOMAINS. THE ENVIRONMENT ON WHICH I WORK ON HAS OVER 500 NETWARE
SERVERS AND 100 NT SERVERS, NT CAN'T HANDLE THE FILE AND PRINT LOAD
(ITS A PIG). LIKE I SAID BEFORE IF YOU HAVE ONLY 25 USERS THAN NT IS
FINE (BECAUSE ITS A TOY, KIND OF LIKE LANTASTIC). ALSO YOU BRING UP
SECURITY, ISN'T IT FUNNY HOW MS SAYS THAT THEY REACH C2 SECURITY -
WELL REMEMBER ONLY AS A STAND ALONE SYSTEM NOT AS A NETWORK. NOVELL
HAS C2 CLASSIFICATION AS A NETWORK!!!! ALSO HOW SECURE IS IT TO HAVE
A COMPLETE TRUSTED DOMAIN? REMEBER THAT EVERY ADMINISTRATOR IN EACH
DOMAIN HAS RIGHTS TO EVERY OTHER DOMAIN (HIMMM PRETTY STUPID HA). OR
WHAT ABOUT USERS HOME DIRECTORIES? OH WHO CARES IF THE USER FILLS UP
THE ENTIRE VOLUME. NOW ON NETWARE YOU DON'T HAVE THESE PROBLEMS.
NOVELL IS FAR MORE SECURE AND ADVANCED THAN NT. -MIKE
Mike
Balakumaran Balabaskaran
I would have to agree with Mike. I myself administer both Netware & NT
servers. In my experience, I feel NT falls far behind in terms of
performance than Netware. It is sometimes frustating to work with NT
because it slower. I feel it is the compound effect of the slowness of SMB
& the GUI interface. Netware's NCP is obviously faster than SMB. The NDS
is far more comprehensive than the NT Directory services. It is also
stable.However, The endusers seem to like the GUI interface of NT, for
reasons which are understandable. But the weird thing is that still most of
the system integrators and administrators, I meet everyday, prefer NT for
no apparent reason. They are just so naive
to understand and address the issues such as security and performance,
wherein NT just will have to surrender.They are simply mesmerised by the
way you can click around in NT. This is one issue I get questioned on
atleast one every week - but there is not definite answer to this
question.BUT NETWARE IS BETTER THAN NT WITH REGARD TO SECURITY AND
PERFORMANCE.
Mike <mch...@hotmail.com> wrote in article <3353DF...@hotmail.com>...
> NOVELL IS FAR MORE SECURE AND ADVANCED THAN NT. -MIKE
>
>
>
>
Steve Basile
Mike is absolutely right here. I use both NOSes and Netware is
faster, more secure, more stable, easier to administer... I cannot
believe NT is gaining market share. All my NT pilot servers have
problems. The highest up time on any NT box has been 3 days, I get 40
day up times on Novell machines and only reboot for the sake of
maintenance.
NT is broken. Micro$soft's marketing power makes it necessary for me
to try it. Then I become responsible for thier bloated shit code.
Tim Barth
Mike <mch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> LISTEN - I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT NETWARE 3.12. EVEN THOUGH IT IS
> BETTER THAN NT 4.0. NETWARE 4.11 WILL OUT PERFORM NT. IT IS A KNOWN
> FACT THAT NETWARE'S NCP IS FASTER AND MORE EFFICENT THAN
> MICROSOFT'S SMB. STEVE HAVE YOU EVER ADMINISTERED A NOVELL
> ENVIRONMENT? ITS OBVIOUS THAT YOU HAVE NOT. FIRST OF ALL NETWARE IS
> NOT A 16BIT NOS! ALSO I THINK THAT YOU SHOULD START READING TRADE
> PUBLICATIONS, BECAUSE YOUR BEHIND THE TIMES. NETWARE AND NOVELL
> DIRECTORY SERVICES ARE MUCH MORE ROBUST AND SCALIBLE THAN NT WITH
> DOMAINS. THE ENVIRONMENT ON WHICH I WORK ON HAS OVER 500 NETWARE
> SERVERS AND 100 NT SERVERS, NT CAN'T HANDLE THE FILE AND PRINT LOAD
> (ITS A PIG). LIKE I SAID BEFORE IF YOU HAVE ONLY 25 USERS THAN NT IS
> FINE (BECAUSE ITS A TOY, KIND OF LIKE LANTASTIC). ALSO YOU BRING UP
> SECURITY, ISN'T IT FUNNY HOW MS SAYS THAT THEY REACH C2 SECURITY -
> WELL REMEMBER ONLY AS A STAND ALONE SYSTEM NOT AS A NETWORK. NOVELL
> HAS C2 CLASSIFICATION AS A NETWORK!!!! ALSO HOW SECURE IS IT TO HAVE
> A COMPLETE TRUSTED DOMAIN? REMEBER THAT EVERY ADMINISTRATOR IN EACH
> DOMAIN HAS RIGHTS TO EVERY OTHER DOMAIN (HIMMM PRETTY STUPID HA). OR
> WHAT ABOUT USERS HOME DIRECTORIES? OH WHO CARES IF THE USER FILLS UP
> THE ENTIRE VOLUME. NOW ON NETWARE YOU DON'T HAVE THESE PROBLEMS.
> NOVELL IS FAR MORE SECURE AND ADVANCED THAN NT.
Does Novell force all upper case ? Seems like that might be a
limitation. ;)
Tim Barth
Enron Capital & Trade
Steve Basile
I'm quoting someone, I forget who, but basically they said that NT
makes the easy things easy and the hard things impossible and
unreliable.
Novell (and unix for that matter)make the easy things hard and the the
hard things easy.
You get the piture
"Balakumaran Balabaskaran" <tt1...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
>I would have to agree with Mike. I myself administer both Netware & NT
>servers. In my experience, I feel NT falls far behind in terms of
>performance than Netware. It is sometimes frustating to work with NT
>because it slower. I feel it is the compound effect of the slowness of SMB
>& the GUI interface. Netware's NCP is obviously faster than SMB. The NDS
>is far more comprehensive than the NT Directory services. It is also
>stable.However, The endusers seem to like the GUI interface of NT, for
>reasons which are understandable. But the weird thing is that still most of
>the system integrators and administrators,
[snip]
Dave Crabbe
Only a few digs at the "collegiate" environment and academics ..
not bad...
You know if you have followed this post, which I follow in Microsoft's
forum, the people who seem to be experienced admins with much
experience *seem* to really prefer Novell's product over Microsoft's.
I was surprised, listening from Microsoft's own forum. I think this
points to some *real* serious problems and dangers for people thinking
that they are going to commit their network to NT. Microsoft's current
product is not capable at the file/print level. Just read all the
problems people are having getting printers and NT4/SP2 working. (100%
CPU usage, etc.)I hope Microsoft is following this thread and that they
hear what users are saying.
We had a campus of 200 users switch to NT in Sept. By the end of
September they realized this was not going to work and finally ended up
switching completely over to NetWare. They are fooled by marketing hype
and by journalists who use a shopping list to compare NOSes and do not
have the experience required to render practical judgements.
I still say that having a NOS where one user can fill your entire volume
is simply not usable; without considering any other points. Add problems
in home directory mapping, print serving, crashing, etc. and you have a
very unsavory NOS. You can leverage some time if you already use NT
workstation or Win95. This is why I stayed away from NetWare. But it
doesn't really take that long to learn if you take a course or have
someone experienced you can call on.
Dave
N.S. Comm. College
Don Barnard
NT pegs the cpu when printing to an LPT port, but I don't know of any
networks where the print servers have printers connected to their
parallel ports.
When you print to something like a lantronix box with an NT server,
cpu use is minimal.
I think it's natural for experienced admins to prefer Novell since the
experienced admins probably all started with Novell, otherwise they
wouldn't be that experienced.<G>
BTW, we have over 10,000 users on our NT domain.
Don
Mike
THESE PROBLEMS.
> NOVELL IS FAR MORE SECURE AND ADVANCED THAN NT.
Does Novell force all upper case ? Seems like that might be a
limitation. ;)
Tim Barth
Enron Capital & Trade
Wow Tim, great contribution!
-Mike
Mike
Don Barnard wrote:
BTW, we have over 10,000 users on our NT domain.
Don
Hey Don - Good Luck. I feel bad for you.
- Mike
Greg Overland
"As an experianced and expensive network administrator..." now why would
such a knowledgable person have such a problem with NT4 as a NOS. If you
have problems running either NT or Novell after a week I think you need
some more experience. I've been doing this for 15 years and each NOS has
it's features and I can get NT running faster then Novell and both will run
over a week, or two, or year, or two... Both require some up front
planning and if done correctly, both function as advertised.
Simon Papworth <s...@integartion-group.com> wrote in article
<01bc4e28$b6935ae0$0f0664c0@scp>...
> I enjoy NT4's functionaility, but please don't say it is easy to use as a
> NOS. If there is any kind of complication, it takes days to get NT4
> provinging the right results reliably. As an experianced and expensive
> network administrator, Novell is a easier system to install and leave
> running for more than just a week or two. But I do like the
functionality
> of NT4 but I do wish I could have both in one box.
>
Dave Crabbe
I think it's natural for experienced admins to prefer Novell since
the
experienced admins probably all started with Novell, otherwise they
wouldn't be that experienced.<G>
BTW, we have over 10,000 users on our NT domain.
Don
* WOW * 10K users .. I would have thought that with NT it wouldn't
be usable. If anyone is going to have problems it would be such a large
system. That is really amazing.
Dave
Mike
Greg Overland wrote:
and I can get NT running faster then Novell and both will run
over a week, or two, or year, or two...
Hey Greg, I'm pretty sure that he is talking about a system that runs
in a production environment. The system that your talking about must not
support any users, and if it does, I would walk around the office with a
stick and poke a couple of people, to see if there still alive.
-Mike
Dave Crabbe
Greg Overland wrote:
"As an experianced and expensive network administrator..." now why
would
such a knowledgable person have such a problem with NT4 as a NOS.
If you
have problems running either NT or Novell after a week I think you
need
some more experience. I've been doing this for 15 years and each
NOS has
it's features and I can get NT running faster then Novell and both
will run
over a week, or two, or year, or two... Both require some up front
planning and if done correctly, both function as advertised.
Agreed ...
But do you really want a NOS where:
1) a user can fill up your volumes?
2) or have problems mapping home directories (without users seeing
everyone's homedirs)?
3) invest in learning a NOS with a lifetime of 1 year?
4) unreliable remote printing (as with TCP services / LPR printing in
NT4 pre-SP2)
5) confusing system of rights and privledges because it is a workstation
(local rights AND
network[remote] rights)
6) it is a workstation? I mean if I've got 500 USERS humping the file
server, do I really
want to pull up WORD or fire up NETSCAPE??? I sure don't want to touch
that beast.
Don Barnard
In case there is any confusion, this is 10k users on the domain, not a
single NT server. The logons of the 10k users are handled by the
master domain's PDC and its BDCs. File/print/application services are
provided by other NT servers. A typical file server might have 300-600
users connected to it.
Don
Richard Hager
Actually, it -was- a good contribution. That all-uppercase message was
hard to read! Its content was good, but what an eye-ache...
You know, it would've been really, really, nice if microsoft had buckled
down and given us NT 3.6, don't you think? In other words, -finished-
one product before rushing out something newer...and worse.
Instead of all the effort expended on the 95 look, the IE, and other
uneccessary fluff, they could've fixed the video speed, added proper net
mgmt items, and fixed their #$%^$# driver problems! Call it 3.6, sell a
million upgrade copies, and made us all very happy.
Sigh....
--
Richard Hager
+ Ah-ha! Design Group, Inc. -
+ Precision CNC Technology, since 1991 -
+ 612-641-1797, Fax: 612-641-8681 -
+ "I just like to make things" so... -
+ ...for CNC info, please call Ah-ha! direct -
+ http://www.ahha.com -
Steve Shane
Balakumaran Balabaskaran <tt1...@idirect.com> wrote in article
<01bc4a25$601ba0c0$d653...@ns.idirect.com>...
> I would have to agree with Mike. I myself administer both Netware & NT
> servers. In my experience, I feel NT falls far behind in terms of
> performance than Netware. It is sometimes frustating to work with NT
> because it slower. I feel it is the compound effect of the slowness of
SMB
> & the GUI interface. Netware's NCP is obviously faster than SMB. The NDS
> is far more comprehensive than the NT Directory services. It is also
> stable.However, The endusers seem to like the GUI interface of NT, for
> reasons which are understandable. But the weird thing is that still most
of
> the system integrators and administrators, I meet everyday, prefer NT for
> no apparent reason. They are just so naive
Glad Mike has a friend.
Naive, don't think so. Some just might not want the confrontation. Nt is
easy because of the GUI, but there is a lot more going on behind the scene
that a real admin has to understand. Novell has some things that run
faster, or seem to because of their lack of gui, yet they seem bent on
heading that direction and if they do then they will fully lose any
advantage of speed in certain areas.
Some like Fords, some like chevy's, pick what you want and stick with it,
if at the end you find yourself all alone, oh well, if not then you can
pride yourself on an excellent choice.
> to understand and address the issues such as security and performance,
> wherein NT just will have to surrender.They are simply mesmerised by the
> way you can click around in NT. This is one issue I get questioned on
> atleast one every week - but there is not definite answer to this
> question.BUT NETWARE IS BETTER THAN NT WITH REGARD TO SECURITY AND
> PERFORMANCE.
Then I wonder why I was able to hack into a Netware server in three days
without any prior information on who were admins, and their passwords.
(Although I found out after I gained entry that I was on the last admin,
and only had about 5 logon chances left, yet I still gained legal entry)
I am certain you will not gain entry into any of my NT servers and my ship
is tight. So whether or not you question security of OS's mine are fine.
Steve Shane
Mike I have servers that I setup and installed in production environments
that have ran for over a year without going down, (I use UPS Power) and
some of these are in programming environments.
Methinks your admin must need a little prodding so they can keep their
servers up. <VBG>
Mike <mch...@hotmail.com> wrote in article <335CE...@hotmail.com>...
> Greg Overland wrote:
>
> and I can get NT running faster then Novell and both will run
> over a week, or two, or year, or two...
>
Steve Shane
Royal Miller <r...@teleplex.net> wrote in article
<3352FC...@teleplex.net>...
> Steve: Maybe you should have added
> Those who can do - DO
> Those who can't do - Teach
> Those who can't Teach - Teach Gym
>
> Read this in cartoon somewhere
> Royal
ROTFLMAO
Steve Shane
Mike <mch...@hotmail.com> wrote in article <3353DF...@hotmail.com>...
> LISTEN - I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT NETWARE 3.12. EVEN THOUGH IT IS
> BETTER THAN NT 4.0. NETWARE 4.11 WILL OUT PERFORM NT. IT IS A KNOWN
> FACT THAT NETWARE'S NCP IS FASTER AND MORE EFFICENT THAN
> MICROSOFT'S SMB. STEVE HAVE YOU EVER ADMINISTERED A NOVELL
> ENVIRONMENT? ITS OBVIOUS THAT YOU HAVE NOT. FIRST OF ALL NETWARE IS
> NOT A 16BIT NOS! ALSO I THINK THAT YOU SHOULD START READING TRADE
> PUBLICATIONS, BECAUSE YOUR BEHIND THE TIMES. NETWARE AND NOVELL
> DIRECTORY SERVICES ARE MUCH MORE ROBUST AND SCALIBLE THAN NT WITH
> DOMAINS. THE ENVIRONMENT ON WHICH I WORK ON HAS OVER 500 NETWARE
> SERVERS AND 100 NT SERVERS, NT CAN'T HANDLE THE FILE AND PRINT LOAD
> (ITS A PIG). LIKE I SAID BEFORE IF YOU HAVE ONLY 25 USERS THAN NT IS
> FINE (BECAUSE ITS A TOY, KIND OF LIKE LANTASTIC). ALSO YOU BRING UP
> SECURITY, ISN'T IT FUNNY HOW MS SAYS THAT THEY REACH C2 SECURITY -
> WELL REMEMBER ONLY AS A STAND ALONE SYSTEM NOT AS A NETWORK. NOVELL
> HAS C2 CLASSIFICATION AS A NETWORK!!!! ALSO HOW SECURE IS IT TO HAVE
> A COMPLETE TRUSTED DOMAIN? REMEBER THAT EVERY ADMINISTRATOR IN EACH
> DOMAIN HAS RIGHTS TO EVERY OTHER DOMAIN (HIMMM PRETTY STUPID HA). OR
> WHAT ABOUT USERS HOME DIRECTORIES? OH WHO CARES IF THE USER FILLS UP
> THE ENTIRE VOLUME. NOW ON NETWARE YOU DON'T HAVE THESE PROBLEMS.
> NOVELL IS FAR MORE SECURE AND ADVANCED THAN NT. -MIKE
My Servers have been up for over 100 days, and only down because of
improvements, addons, or changing of vertain items that require a reboot.
If you set up your systems in a trusted domain the way you described, then
I wonder just how adept you are at S.A.
I would never setup a system like you suggest, for the same reasons you
suggest.
As to users filling up directories, there are programs designed to thwart
that very situation.
Now before you complain too much about actually buying an addon to NT
Server, showing that you are used to all the stuff that comes with NT.
COnsider that with Netware you have to actually buy addon components to
make it work too.
As to the C2 security, I believe you are at least partially correct here.
Now if you respond to this will you type in an even larger type case?
Steve
Mike
Zachary Scott wrote:
The biggest problem I think Netware must
overcome is TCP/IP tunneling through IPX. IPX and earlier Appletalk
are for simple
networks. TCP/IP in its native form is necessary for a fairly
efficient network and
Netware does not have it.
Novell will have native TCP/IP by the start of the third quarter. Let me
make one thing perfectly
clear MS encapsulates Netbios headers, Novell encapsulates IPX
headers!!!!
Unix is the god of NOS!
- Mike
TC
Don Barnard wrote in article <335f599c....@msnews.microsoft.com>...
>In case there is any confusion, this is 10k users on the domain, not a
>single NT server. The logons of the 10k users are handled by the
>master domain's PDC and its BDCs. File/print/application services are
>provided by other NT servers. A typical file server might have 300-600
>users connected to it.
Don,
What kind of servers are you using and what is their configuration. I
brought my NT 3.51 server to it's knees last fall while trying to install
MS Office off of the file server onto just 15 workstations. The machine is
a Pentium 133, 128MB, Ultra Wide SCSI disks, 100BT card, 3Com Etherswitch,
each Win95 machine is on its own switched port. I've heard similar reports
from others about NT getting bogged down when hit with big file servicing.
Anyone else seen that problem?
TC
Zachary Scott
Hello:
In my opinion, Netware is strictly for file sharing and print servicing.
NT
is for file sharing, print servicing, TCP/IP communications, a great way to
quickly
implement many communication solutions, etc. Unix is above all and really
should
not be compared to Netware and NT unless you are looking for ways to
improve
them.
I will say that I prefer NT over Netware anyday, although the stability
of NT is highly dependent on the hardware and the position of the moon
relative to the sun and Earth :-) The biggest problem I think Netware must
overcome
is TCP/IP tunneling through IPX. IPX and earlier Appletalk are for simple
networks.
TCP/IP in its native form is necessary for a fairly efficient network and
Netware
does not have it.
> Steve Shane wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> Bla.. Bla.. Bla..
Mike
Steve,
>> Now if you respond to this will you type in an even larger type case?
DA! NO
First of all lets talk about security. Read this article
http://techweb.cmp.com/eet/news/97/950news/hackers.html
These guys can't even believe that NT is certified as C2 compliant. Next
how about add-ons,
how many (third party) add-ons do you need to get? Yea NT needs an
add-on to limit the space on
volumes for users, no biggie. Oh what about limiting concurrent
connections to a NT server (add-on).
The list goes on.
>> COnsider that with Netware you have to actually buy addon components
to
> > make it work too.
Netware does not need any add-ons to get it to work! On the other hand
with NT you need to fix the
broken domain architecture. Everyone knows that it doesn't scale and is
a peice of crap, look even Banyan
is writing street talk to port to NT. That’s why Micro$oft is switching
to Directory Services, ADSI will not be
stable for several releases. If you want to take a look at it, the beta
is out, and everyone beta testing it
gives it very very low marks.
I'd really like to know how you can honestly believe that NT is better
than Netware. With NT if your
PDC or BDC goes down, you can't make a stand alone server a Domain
controller. So what do you
have to do in this situation? Lets see, you can't do an upgrade. That’s
right you have to re-install the
software. What about changing one BDC or PDC to another domain, sorry
you can't do that either
because the SID ( re-install). Great product! With Netware if you need
to take one server and remove a
replica then place another replica on it, no problem. What about when
you need to take a server from
one partition and move it to another partition? No problem ! All of this
can be done with no down time to
the users.
Hey Steve instead of me going on about NT why don't you bring up some
weak points on Netware 4.1x.
If you only know NT I will understand.
>> As to the C2 security, I believe you are at least partially correct
here.
You didn't explain how I am partially correct.
- Mike
Mike
Steve Shane wrote:
Mike I have servers that I setup and installed in production
environments
that have ran for over a year without going down, (I use UPS Power)
and
some of these are in programming environments.
Methinks your admin must need a little prodding so they can keep
their
servers up. <VBG>
Steve,
Methinks you need to learn how to type.
What about two years? Was this an NT server and how many users did it
handle?
- Mike
Mike
Then I wonder why I was able to hack into a Netware server in three
days
without any prior information on who were admins, and their
passwords.
(Although I found out after I gained entry that I was on the last
admin,
and only had about 5 logon chances left, yet I still gained legal
entry)
I am certain you will not gain entry into any of my NT servers and
my ship
is tight. So whether or not you question security of OS's mine are
fine.
Hey Steve,
Greg Overland
Novell has only submitted paperwork for C2 Certification. NT is C2 Orange
Book Certified. NT has also been submitted for C2 Red Book. In simple
terms Orange Book is a standalone rating, and Red is networked.
Mike <mch...@hotmail.com> wrote in article <335F82...@hotmail.com>...
Don Barnard
Mostly multiprocessor Compaq Proliants for the main file servers, but
we also have junky underpowered PS/2's crashing under the weight of
too many print queues and not enough disk space.<G>
The clients are all 10baseT. Fiber backbones for the servers. The
proliant servers typically have hardware RAID, 128-256 meg ram.
Don
On Thu, 24 Apr 1997 13:46:49 -0400, "TC" <chamb...@mercer.edu>
wrote:
Steve Shane
Mike
When I learn how to type it will surprise many.
I haven't ran any server two years, mainly because of upgrades.
I've only setup on Novell system in the last three years, and that was a
"forced" situation.
And, yes, it is still up. All the rest have been NT on various hardware
platforms, mostly of my choosing. Smallest server has six workstations, and
largest 200+.
I put print spoolers off the main drives, and have some multiple use print
servers that are spitting out paper almost all day. They seem to want the
events log showing what was printed, which I hate since going thru the
events log gets very boring and long.
Steve
Mike <mch...@hotmail.com> wrote in article <335F84...@hotmail.com>...
Steve Shane
Mike,
This all changes in NT5.0 wherein TCP will be default.
WItch Unix<g>
Steve
Mike <mch...@hotmail.com> wrote in article <335F86...@hotmail.com>...
Gerald Fay
--------------DC4DF12D428364EE9C80EB0B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Steve Shane wrote:
> Mike
>
> When I learn how to type it will surprise many.
>
> I haven't ran any server two years, mainly because of upgrades.
>
> I've only setup on Novell system in the last three years, and that
> was a
> "forced" situation.
> And, yes, it is still up. All the rest have been NT on various
> hardware
> platforms, mostly of my choosing. Smallest server has six
> workstations, and
> largest 200+.
>
> I put print spoolers off the main drives, and have some multiple use
> print
> servers that are spitting out paper almost all day. They seem to
> want the
> events log showing what was printed, which I hate since going thru
> the
> events log gets very boring and long.
>
> Steve
>
> Mike <mch...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> <335F84...@hotmail.com>...
> > Steve,
> > Methinks you need to learn how to type.
> >
> > What about two years? Was this an NT server and how many users did
> it
> > handle?
> > - Mike
> >
> >
You will find that NT is much easier to set up and use.
If I never have to set up another Netware Server it will be too soon.
The only negative is support is terrible. If you are a hacker and read
the news groups you can get by. MicroSoft Support is atrociously
expensive. There are several MVP users who frequent these newsgroups and
are worth their weight in gold. However, some very important questions
will go unanswered and I would just suggest reposting.
P.S. went to a recent free NT seminar in Seattle and learned that MS
people frequently read newsgroup posts, but almost never reply.
Too bad.
--------------DC4DF12D428364EE9C80EB0B
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><BODY>
Steve Shane wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Mike
<BR>
<BR>When I learn how to type it will surprise many.
<BR>
<BR>I haven't ran any server two years, mainly because of upgrades.
<BR>
<BR>I've only setup on Novell system in the last three years, and that was
a
<BR>"forced" situation.
<BR>And, yes, it is still up. All the rest have been NT on various hardware
<BR>platforms, mostly of my choosing. Smallest server has six workstations,
and
<BR>largest 200+.
<BR>
<BR>I put print spoolers off the main drives, and have some multiple use print
<BR>servers that are spitting out paper almost all day. They seem to want the
<BR>events log showing what was printed, which I hate since going thru the
<BR>events log gets very boring and long.
<BR>
<BR>Steve
<BR>
<BR>Mike <mch...@hotmail.com> wrote in article <335F84...@hotmail.com>...
<BR><I>> Steve,</I>
<BR><I>> Methinks you need to learn how to type.</I>
<BR><I>></I>
<BR><I>> What about two years? Was this an NT server and how many users did
it</I>
<BR><I>> handle?</I>
<BR><I>> - Mike</I>
<BR><I>></I>
<BR><I>></I>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
You will find that NT is much easier to set up and use.
<BR>If I never have to set up another Netware Server it will be too soon.
<BR>The only negative is support is terrible. If you are a hacker and read
the news groups you can get by. MicroSoft Support is atrociously expensive.
There are several MVP users who frequent these newsgroups and are worth
their weight in gold. However, some very important questions will go unanswered
and I would just suggest reposting.
<BR>
<BR>P.S. went to a recent free NT seminar in Seattle and learned that MS people
frequently read newsgroup posts, but almost never reply.
<BR>Too bad.
</BODY>
</HTML>
--------------DC4DF12D428364EE9C80EB0B--
Brian
I like NT a lot, but NT has major problem: it is not stable.
NT drivers leaks memory, and servers have to be rebooted every several
month.
This is not a problem, but when you got 100+ servers it is.
Brian
Zachary Scott <za...@crepsunited.com> wrote in article
<01bc50be$bce73a90$47d4c3d0@matrix>...
Brian
Yeah, last year we went to 100% NT shop ( well almost). Existing novell
servers will go away in 3 to 6 month. Total number of workstations will be
well above 20,000.
3 Authentication Domains, and hundreds of small domains. All workstations
are running NT. No printing problems... Never heard of them. True queues
locks from time to time, but so they did on novell. (Makes we think where
should I put my CNE?). NT also do really nice job upgrading print drivers.
Drive mapping problem were solved by removing Novell services :) As far as
your concerns about 200 users, don't.
Brian
Dave Crabbe <crab...@burridge.nscc.ns.ca> wrote in article
<3359EE...@burridge.nscc.ns.ca>...
Paul BOYER
OK, but we use Netware, and we have no problem, the shutdown without reason
(on any network instability, dur to NFS tunelling) so often it is
impossible to known if they memory leak: they have not enought time to !
Brian wrote in article <01bc537b$79825a40$47359a93@snoopy>...
Robert A. Hatcher
Steve Shane wrote:
> Mike <mch...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> COnsider that with Netware you have to actually buy addon components
> to
> make it work too.
>
> As to the C2 security, I believe you are at least partially correct
> here.
>
> Now if you respond to this will you type in an even larger type
> case?
>
> Steve
C2 security is not possible when on a network. Nuff said!
Brian
Yeah, this is nothing. Sorry, but w/o admin password you still can not
retrieve others passwords. Novell Netware is weak. I would not trust any
other C2 product
if NW 4.1x will get c2. Can you still unload security NLM on Netware? :)
Brian
Mike <mch...@hotmail.com> wrote in article <335F82...@hotmail.com>...
> Steve,
> >> Now if you respond to this will you type in an even larger type case?
>
> DA! NO
>
> First of all lets talk about security. Read this article
> http://techweb.cmp.com/eet/news/97/950news/hackers.html
> These guys can't even believe that NT is certified as C2 compliant. Next
> how about add-ons,
> how many (third party) add-ons do you need to get? Yea NT needs an
> add-on to limit the space on
> volumes for users, no biggie. Oh what about limiting concurrent
> connections to a NT server (add-on).
> The list goes on.
> >> COnsider that with Netware you have to actually buy addon components
> to
> > > make it work too.
> >> As to the C2 security, I believe you are at least partially correct
> here.
> You didn't explain how I am partially correct.
>
> - Mike
>
>
CES
Sorry I hit the thread late..
Just a note...on the security rating...Netware (whatever version)...is NOT
C2 certified.. this is just another marketing ploy...Read the literature
carefully..It says it meets the requirements, but has yet to PASS
testing...C2 does not refer to networking..
Quote: "in order to satisfy the C2 requirements, NetWare 4.1 needs a secure
client component, being supplied by Sistex, Inc. The Sistex client
component is included in the evaluation because it provides two essential
aspects of the C2 evaluation that NetWare 4.1 (and IntranetWare) lacks:
Discretionary Access Control and Identification and Authentication. In
fact, without a component such as the Sistex client, the "off-the-shelf"
version of NetWare 4.1 could not be C2 evaluated at all. "
(MS whitepaper).
I checked the website below , and also called to verify this statement
CHECK: http://www.radium.ncsc.mil
NT 3.51 SP3 was certified...clear as day...
2. Explain to me why you thiink Netware is NOT a 16 NOS?
Check you resources...and really look into the architecture.
3. YES, NDS is more robust...However, it is Novell's own X500
rendition..not industry.. Groupwise does not even use it natively...(I
know, I use groupwise as well as Exchange...
4. I will gladly compare all day long..NT, Novell, which to use? Hmm.?
I use both...For what I need to do with my enterprise..I need the full
range of what NT offers..Not just file and print..That's old network...
My Netware boxes will soon be gone (Thank God)...
IntranetWare??? please...Novell doesn't even use the product...
Just my little tid-bit on the thread....
Please feel free to email opinions or thoughts.
My opinions and thoughts are my own!!!!!!!!!!!
Sam.
Robert A. Hatcher <hatc...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<3367D637...@mindspring.com>...
> Steve Shane wrote:
>
> > Mike <mch...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
Steve Shane
Mike <mch...@hotmail.com> wrote in article <335F8A...@hotmail.com>...
> Hey Steve,
> First of all lets talk about security. Read this article
> http://techweb.cmp.com/eet/news/97/950news/hackers.html
> These guys can't even believe that NT is certified as C2 compliant. Next
Their idea, but it still is certified.
> how about add-ons,
> how many (third party) add-ons do you need to get? Yea NT needs an
> add-on to limit the space on
> volumes for users, no biggie. Oh what about limiting concurrent
> connections to a NT server (add-on).
I use no addon software other than things like diskeeper and so on. As to
limiting users, I do that by allowing certain users to certain servers, and
not others, and in some cases to multiple servers. Need to boost a server
to handle more accounts? add memory, use the right cpu for the job, you
know all the little things admins are supposed to know.
Guess what, if you limit how you design a network you will always have
problems regardless of the OS.
You are right about not being able to elevate server to a PDC or BDC. But
why would you want to? Servers have their place, as does PDC etc. You can
use one way trusting, two way etc. Many benefits to NT.
As to moving the OS to another partition, there is no need. No reason, and
I keep my OS on its own drive. I can move things around and have on
occasion, but for personal reasons.
I don't see any "broken OS" in NT, and I have been running them for as long
as they have been around.
WIth the built in RAID, the coming clustering, hot swapping (which as I
remember was a third party addon for Novell) there are jsut too much to
give up to go back to novell.
As to directory services, there are some weaknesses there, but NT has not
been around as long as Novell, but they sure have grown faster, better, and
far easier to manage in the short time it has been around. Mike, why don't
you study the manuals, learn how to do things for yourself?
> Hey Steve instead of me going on about NT why don't you bring up some
> weak points on Netware 4.1x.
> If you only know NT I will understand.
I have limited usage of Netware, and what I had learned I only pull up when
needed, although it is surprising what you remember when you put your hands
at their keyboard.
I think Novell did a good job with what they had, and it its day it was
suitable, and made more suitable with addons. Dos was also good, for what
it did, and when you boot up into MS-DOS on a pentium it really screams.
But I do not care to go back to the character based interface.
Why should I knock Novell, they are trying, just like Apple is. If you
prefer and like Novell, then more power to you. "Everyone to their own
taste." Said the farmer as he kissed the cow.
Steve
Don Weller
Bumped into a Novell admin in the hall the other day. This is what he told
me:
Robert A. Hatcher <hatc...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<3367D637...@mindspring.com>...
> Steve Shane wrote:
>
> > Mike <mch...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> > My Servers have been up for over 100 days, and only down because of
> > improvements, addons, or changing of vertain items that require a
> > reboot.
> > If you set up your systems in a trusted domain the way you
> > described, then
> > I wonder just how adept you are at S.A.
> >
> > I would never setup a system like you suggest, for the same reasons
> > you
> > suggest.
> >
> > As to users filling up directories, there are programs designed to
> > thwart
> > that very situation.
> > Now before you complain too much about actually buying an addon to
> > NT
> > Server, showing that you are used to all the stuff that comes with
> > NT.
> > COnsider that with Netware you have to actually buy addon components
> > to
> > make it work too.
> >
> > As to the C2 security, I believe you are at least partially correct
> > here.
> >
> > Now if you respond to this will you type in an even larger type
> > case?
> >
> > Steve
>
> C2 security is not possible when on a network. Nuff said!
>
>
begin 600 elmrfudd.wav
<uuencoded_portion_removed>
3,2 H0RD@0VAR:7,@0W)A:6<``"TP
`
end
amesias
Mike wrote:
> Unix is the god of NOS!
> - Mike
Isn't it amazing how most people tend to agree on the unix thing?
I have a 25 client network in a law firm that used to be on Lantastic
6.22. I get much better performance and ease of administration off NT.
I like the GUI, and I realize it takes up alot of resources, but is this
problem becasue the OS doesn't approprietly manage the resources or just
because it's "top heavy" by today's standards? Hardware gets more
powerful each day and less expensive. With new proccesors and
technologies coming out, will resources really be a problem, say 14
months from now?
I have never ran Novell, but I might have to if I can't find a solution
for a program on a DOS workstation wanting a drive descriptor on an Int
21h, 1Ch call. Microsoft returns a 0 for the network drive which for
the program is an unknown media type while Novell returns the correct
F8h indicating a fixed drive.
Getting a Novell server for just two workstations seems like a waste of
money and resources, but it has made me realize that for whatever the
reasons, more often than not, alot of networks end up with both.
Osvaldo Pinali Doederlein
>> > As to the C2 security, I believe you are at least partially correct
>> > here.
>> C2 security is not possible when on a network. Nuff said!
NT's C2 (Red Book, which includes network operation) is still being
evaluated by NSA. To date, NT has two security certificates: C2 Orange Book
(no network) for version 3.51 w/ SP3, and ITSEC's FC2/E3 for version 4.0.
ITSEC is a kind of European NSA, and FC2/E3 is equivalent to the Rainbow
Series's C2 Red Book. So, NT is C2-level safe including network if used in
Europe, but it isn't yet as safe if used in the US and countries which
adopt American security standards and certificates.
>> > Now if you respond to this will you type in an even larger type
>> > case?
You know, he didn't buy the Caps Lock Support NLM.
[]s,
Mike Shepherd
> (snip)
>
> I have never ran Novell, but I might have to if I can't find a
> solution for a program on a DOS workstation wanting a drive
> descriptor on an Int 21h, 1Ch call. Microsoft returns a 0 for the
> network drive which for the program is an unknown media type while
> Novell returns the correct F8h indicating a fixed drive.
>
> Getting a Novell server for just two workstations seems like a waste
> of money and resources, but it has made me realize that for whatever
> the reasons, more often than not, alot of networks end up with both.
Maybe you could use MS File & Print for Netware (FPSNW)? It's low cost
and allows an NT server to pretend it's a Netware server. I'm not sure
if you can use it without actually having a real Netware server but it
might be worth pursuing.
Mike.
Osvaldo Pinali Doederlein
Douglas Stinson
amesias <sme...@internetmci.com> wrote in article
<336A4B...@internetmci.com>...
> ...
> I have never ran Novell, but I might have to if I can't find a solution
> for a program on a DOS workstation wanting a drive descriptor on an Int
> 21h, 1Ch call. Microsoft returns a 0 for the network drive which for
> the program is an unknown media type while Novell returns the correct
> F8h indicating a fixed drive.
Who says that it SHOULD return F8h for a network drive? Look at the OTHER
info this call returns:
number of clusters, sectors per cluster, and media descriptor access. What
possible, legitimate business would a program running on a remote PC have
with this kind of info? Sounds like it's trying to set itself up for
direct block I/O. It also sounds like perhaps Novell is the one returning
the wrong value, not Microsoft.
In any event, I certainly wouldn't let a DOS program like that drive my
networking decision. Perhaps, since you know the "offending" call, it
might be a whole let better just to fix the DOS program giving you the
problem.
Douglas Stinson
Kris Krueger
Wow such a debate, but face the music Novell is just fine for only file and
print services...Now as an application server Novell is not making the
grade...But hey I have no problem using one Novell server for file services
it gives me control of my users home directory space. But I as a medium
scale system administrator find it hard to hire and or train someone in
novell just because of the cost !!! NT is far more cost effective to run
and that is my primary goal. So who ever has that 500 server ?? netware
server network cannot really think that NT will not soon be a part of their
network should think again !!! In fact if you are a serious system
administrator your number one goal should be the most cost effective NOS on
the market. But If cost is not a problem call IBM get OS/400 and a bunch
of mainframes with all the buttons, but for the rest of us we will use NT
that actually scales quite well ( ALPHA's ) and all our users can enjoy the
benifits of a NT network. I am able to build an effective intranet system,
have massive control of all my win95 computers and provide all my users
internet access without a incredible amount $$$ plus I love ASP and IIS
3.0, ILS my company makes extensive use of netmeeting and all my mobile
users are able to get to our network from any where in the world PPTP.
Besides that all the great apps ( DBs, accounting , spreadsheets ) work so
well under the windows platform. SO NOVELL AND UNIX CUT AND PASTE THIS !!
The numbers speak for themselves IBM/SUN are the best NOS on the market
but the costs are way to expensive for any company that keeps their eye on
the $$$ to use. Now with NT the fastest growing NOS around and the most
cost effective NOS around. Finally novell an OS that is not growing but
declining . I just hope the do not stop selling 3.12 or I would have no
use for them and I think that speaks for most all current novell users
(just look how many want to upgrade to 4.X ). So if you are building a
network small -> medium ( 5-1000) sized network use NT , else use UNIX .
But rember the costs far less to have one NOVELL box in an NT network or
LINUX box than one NT box in a NOVELL network.
Richard Lewis Haggard
There are some other disadvantages to Netware that I've yet to see anyone
address which, from my own point of view, make the choice for NT a
no-brainer.
1) Reliability- When Netware goes down (and it will) everyone will have to
reboot in order to regain access to system resources. Plus the time to
reboot event a modest system can run into a couple of hours depending upon
why the system crashed, what has to be repaired, number of drives to mount,
etc.
2) Long file names- I can't begin to adequately express (in polite terms,
anyway) the level of frustration or time lost to trying to install
something from the net only to find out that there's been a problem with
the file name. The same is true going the other way. I've lost days of time
so far this year to a programmer accidentally created a non 8.3 file name
and then putting that file into SourceSafe. SourceSafe keeps the long file
name but, of course, that name gets mangled by the time it is actually on
disk. SourceSafe can't deal with the descripency and a backup has to be
brought in before SourceSafe is running again.
--
Richard Lewis Haggard
hag...@world.std.com_x
Haggard & Associates, International
---------------
Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film.
Dave Crabbe
Richard Lewis Haggard wrote:
>
> 1) Reliability- When Netware goes down (and it will) everyone will
> have to
> reboot in order to regain access to system resources. Plus the time
> to
> reboot event a modest system can run into a couple of hours
> depending upon
> why the system crashed, what has to be repaired, number of drives to
> mount,
> etc.
We use 200 Win95 clients on our NetWare 3x system and have not had to
re-boot
every (or many) computers if our NetWare 3.12 server crashes. We have
also
found our NetWare 3.12 server to be more stable than our NT4 Servers.
I'm not
sure what you say is applicable with all Win95 clients (?)
>
> 2) Long file names- I can't begin to adequately express (in polite
> terms,
> anyway) the level of frustration or time lost to trying to install
> something from the net only to find out that there's been a problem
> with
> the file name.
Yeah, I agree .. We thought we would have a major problem this year when
we started saving long filenames on our 3.12 server. But .... We loaded
the
OS2 namespace ... and in 10 months I have not heard of one problem
related
to the network not storing long filename. Generally the problem will
occur
on the client side if a 16bit Win3 app is used to save a file. Then the
long file
name is lost.
We do run backup programs (I am not familiar with "SafeSource"), and
they
seem to preserve long filenames fine.
So in our experience we have had little if any problems with the long
filename thing.
Dave
William Allen Scheer
As a systems engineer with a large national vendor, I have to address this
question with potential clients everyday. My take is that if you want
simple file and print services - Netware is the best performer. If you plan
on doing client/server applications, web server or SQL ~ go with NT, it's
just a better platform for the more complicated stuff.
Richard Lewis Haggard <hag...@world.std.com_x> wrote in article
<01bc65ea$c3bc9540$5234...@dell90.vivo.com>...
> There are some other disadvantages to Netware that I've yet to see anyone
> address which, from my own point of view, make the choice for NT a
> no-brainer.
> .................
William Allen Scheer
There is a great comparison white paper available for down load at
http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/info/NTSvsNovellMB.htm
Yes some of it is MS hype, but for the most part it lays out the difference
pretty well. I've done a fact check of this document with a Novell Sales
rep who confirmed that at least this document id technically accurate.
Dave Crabbe <crab...@burridge.nscc.ns.ca> wrote in article
<33837C41...@burridge.nscc.ns.ca>...
> Kris Krueger wrote: .
>
> ... snip ...In fact if you are a serious system
>
> > administrator your number one goal should be the most cost effective
> > NOS on
> > the market. But If cost is not a problem call IBM get OS/400 and a
> > bunch
> > of mainframes with all the buttons, but for the rest of us we will
> > use NT
> > that actually scales quite well
>
> I would say that the cost of a NOS is not in it's purchase price but in
> the cost of
> maintaining it. I have had more "cost" maintaining NT4 than Netware 3x.
> Also
> I cannot do some "fundamental" user management such as disk quotas,
> printer
> accounting, to name some.. hope NT5 gets it right.
>
> Dave
>
>
Lester Russell - [ BackOffice MVP ]
Guess this thread will never die?
Lester Russell
AT&T-Managed Network Solutions
Microsoft BackOffice MVP
Kris Krueger wrote in article <01bc61b4$d18bd120$420f0923@kris>...
>
>Wow such a debate, but face the music Novell is just fine for only file
and
>print services...Now as an application server Novell is not making the
>grade...But hey I have no problem using one Novell server for file
services
>it gives me control of my users home directory space. But I as a medium
>scale system administrator find it hard to hire and or train someone in
>novell just because of the cost !!! NT is far more cost effective to run
>and that is my primary goal. So who ever has that 500 server ?? netware
>server network cannot really think that NT will not soon be a part of
their
>network should think again !!! In fact if you are a serious system
>administrator your number one goal should be the most cost effective NOS
on
>the market. But If cost is not a problem call IBM get OS/400 and a bunch
>of mainframes with all the buttons, but for the rest of us we will use NT
>that actually scales quite well ( ALPHA's ) and all our users can enjoy
the
>benifits of a NT network. I am able to build an effective intranet
system,
>have massive control of all my win95 computers and provide all my users
>internet access without a incredible amount $$$ plus I love ASP and IIS
>3.0, ILS my company makes extensive use of netmeeting and all my mobile
>users are able to get to our network from any where in the world PPTP.
>Besides that all the great apps ( DBs, accounting , spreadsheets ) work
so
>well under the windows platform. SO NOVELL AND UNIX CUT AND PASTE THIS
!!
>The numbers speak for themselves IBM/SUN are the best NOS on the market
>but the costs are way to expensive for any company that keeps their eye