--------------------------------------------------------------------- NW-vs-NT.DOC -- 19961031 -- Email thread on NetWare versus Windows NT --------------------------------------------------------------------- Feel free to add or edit this document and then email it back to faq@jelyon.com Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 19:49:51 -0400 From: PowrTekSys@aol.com (Kevin C. McIntosh) To: netw4-l@bgu.edu Subject: Re: Netware 4.x vs WinNT >Why should I recommend NW4.1 over NT? Netware Directory Services (NDS), On-the-fly file compression, Block sub-allocation, and Storage Migration Services (SMS). NDS is a hiearchial relational database that represents your organizations structure. NDS provides you with objects to indicate each and every resource available, with detailed information. The Netware Administrator allows you to administer resources from a single Windows interface, across the entire WAN. If you run Groupwise, the administration can also be done within NWADMIN. NT uses Domains, which, I feel, are cumbersome over a WAN. To me, NT Server isn't much better than running NW v3.1x over a WAN. I do hear that NT makes a good application server, however, I've heard that it has some problems with the Sybase Engine. If you're looking to upgrade to Windows '95, NT is ready for it. Right now, there isn't a 32-bit client that supports the NDS. There is an Alpha version on Novell's FTP site, but I don't recommend running Alpha or Beta versions of anything on production servers. I have seen clients ABEND servers even though some people say this can't happen.. Personnally, I see Windows NT Workstation taking over the corporate desktop. The next version, due the end of this year, will feature an Explorer interface just like Windows '95. Regarding your hardware, I'd get, at least, 8MBs of memory in your machines. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 02:00:09 -0700 From: nakagama@ix.netcom.com (Ken Nakagama) To: netw4-l@bgu.edu Subject: Re: Netware 4.x vs WinNT >Soon we will be implementing a departmental LAN. I've had experience >with 4.0 and 4.1, our other tech person is sold on Windows NT. > We'll have a maximum of 150 users, ranging from some XT's (yes, it's >not a typo . . .), many 4MB Windows 3.1 users, up to a few lucky >Pentium 16MB, 1Gig users. Mostly using MS office apps, some WP51., >occasional DBase access. > Why should I recommend NW4.1 over NT? > Why would I use NT instead of NW4.1? > Is OS/2 Lan Server a viable contender? > (I get a free lunch to "discuss the merits of these NOS's!") We run both NT 3.51 and Netware 4.1. each has it's own merits and drawbacks. To say the least, I have several friends at Novell.., none of whom will concede that NT will eat Netware for dinner. I like Netware for what it does best: File & print services across PC, Mac, Unix and OS2. I feel Netware does Mac better than Apple. I like NT for remote access. The secure kernal is great as an application server. NT will most likely be hard to beat come Feb96, but Novell will have a hybrid Unix/Netware OS available. As most of us know, NT is really advanced VMS. Digital almost went underground by ignoring the Unix world. I believe that most future networks will be a hybrid, as would reflect the internet itself. Case in point, anyone running Netware and Windows for WorkGroups ? If you have Peer to peer enabled, you already have a hybrid. It isn't a case of what is going to overtake one or another, they will survive. If everyone agreed on what is best, we would live with one airline, one auto manufacturer and one spoken language. Ken BeanCounter Network Systems Campbell, California ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Sep 1995 23:12:00 +0000 From: NCG!CLEVELAND!Dan@ncgrp2.attmail.com (Dan Rusek) To: netw4-l@bgu.edu ('internet!bgu.edu!netw4-l') Subject: Re: Netware 4.x vs WinNT Steve Clevenger replied to this request with a detailed Word document which I have converted to text below for those of you who may not have the time or the tools to get his document. I feel he really hit the nail on the head, but I had a few comments of my own: Novell is simplifying network administration with NDS: - Numerous third party companies are in the process of rewriting their programs to work with NDS. They extend the NDS schema to include additional objects and/or properties so their application's data can be stored inside of NDS as well. They also write "Snap-In" modules for NWADMIN that an administrator to access the new objects and properties using NWADMIN. Instead of having one database with network users, groups, printers,.. , another for Email, another for host connectivity data,... - each having their own configuration utility, NDS will provide a central repository for everything with a single utility to manage it all. - Refer to the July issue of the NPA's Network News publication for a really informative article by Walter Boyd which compares NT and NetWare 4 in the area of WAN administration. In his words "NDS is far superior to NT's domain architecture". Microsoft should be ashamed to call their domain concept directory services: - NT Domains are flat databases, just like the bindery in 3.x. There is no resemblance whatsoever to NDS's hierarchical design. Nor can the database be broken down into smaller partitions - it's everything or nothing. - With NDS, administration can be assigned on a container by container basis - with NT and administrator either has rights to all users or no users unless multiple domains are created which is not a simple process. NT's administration for even a medium size network is a nightmare - Taking existing domains and setting them up as a multiple domain environment is not a simple task. Microsoft missed the boat on this one! - If you want to remove a domain from a server or place a domain on an NT server that is not currently a domain controller, you have to re-install! - I haven't been able to figure out how to rename a group - it appears that you have to document it, recreate it, and then delete the old one! - I admit, the GUI interface is a pleasure to use, but having to use the NT admin program to create users and groups and then having to use File Manager to assign rights doesn't make much sense to me! The cost factor is a big issue, but I guess I've always felt you get what you pay for. Lantastic and Packard Bells are inexpensive too! Steve's document (hope you don't mind, Steve): NetWare or Windows NT Server Advantages of NetWare over NT 1. NetWare has a long track record for providing excellent NOS's (13 years in business). 2. Novell's primary focus as a company is NetWare. 3. There are more third party utilities for NetWare. 4. NetWare provides long term file salvage, allowing recovery of deleted data without restoring from backups. 5. Printing to remote printers (not attached to a workstation) is built into the OS with print server devices designed specifically for NetWare servers. There are two ways to print remotely with NT. One is the DLC protocol that is supported on one NT sub-network. If you have more than network segment, DLC will not work. The other method would require NT to emulate a UNIX server and the print server devices to service that emulated UNIX server. 6. Because of NetWare's longevity and popularity, there is a larger base of free knowledge available on the Internet, on Compuserve and from NUI user groups. 7. NetWare is a very tunable OS. Parameters can be adjusted to make the OS more efficient. 8. NetWare provides NetWare Directory Services (NDS). NDS is a global naming directory allowing users to login once and access all network resources that support NDS. As NDS gains in popularity, more and more resources will become NDS compliant. 9. The NetWare server, network protocols and clients are C2 security compliant. NT is C2 compliant at the server only. 10. There are currently no real time virus scanners for NT. There is a limited number of scheduling virus scanners. 11. Currently all software metering packages require workstation modules. This consumes already limited resources and makes metering easy to defeat. 12. Windows NT login scrips are practically useless. They offer no replaceable parameters like NetWare, and in many cases, they run in a DOS VM that lose the script settings once the VM closes. 13. A directory structure that users do not have access to are still visible to users on an NT network. For example, with NetWare I map a single drive letter to a directory called SHARED that has about 50 subdirectories. Assume a user only has access to 5 of those directories, which is about average. With NetWare, the user would only see 5 directories. With NT, the users sees all 50 directories, but recieves an error message when attempting to access a directory he does not have access to. Microsoft's failed attempts at a NOS 1. MS-Net (1984) was sold directly from MS and OEM'ed to IBM as PCNetwork and then PC LAN, and to 3Com as Ethershare. 2. OS/2 LAN Manager (1988) was sold by Microsoft and OEM'ed to 3Com as 3 plus Open. 3. Windows NT and Windows for Workgroups are based heavily on Microsoft LAN Manager. Advantages of NT over NetWare 1. Microsoft's networking client software integrates into Windows and Windows NT workstations better than Novell's counterparts. 2. Windows NT is licensed per client in a domain, instead of per connections to the server. This could make future expansion less expensive. I apologize if this has been discussed ad nauseum... Soon we will be implementing a departmental LAN. I've had experience with 4.0 and 4.1, our other tech person is sold on Windows NT. We'll have a maximum of 150 users, ranging from some XT's (yes, it's not a typo . . .), many 4MB Windows 3.1 users, up to a few lucky Pentium 16MB, 1Gig users. Mostly using MS office apps, some WP51., occasional DBase access. Why should I recommend NW4.1 over NT? Why would I use NT instead of NW4.1? Is OS/2 Lan Server a viable contender? (I get a free lunch to "discuss the merits of these NOS's!") Any and all info, best from those who've worked with both (all three?), would be very muchly appreciated! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 95 14:04:20 From: "Allen Francom" To: netw4-l@bgu.edu Subject: RE: Netware 4 vs NT...NTAS ? We use NT, NTAS, OS/2 2.11, Warp, Novell 3.12, and Novell 4.1. Win95 too, but as little as possible for now. Novell has good comments regarding how NTAS WILL IN FACT cause very high CPU utilization if you saturate an ethernet segment. i.e., NT requires a lot of CPU to drive ethernet. Novell can easily handle 2 to 3 times as much Ethernet traffic with the same amount of CPU power. NT can serve some neat applications, faxing, com gateway, and be a file server all at the same time, but all these things really slow it down. We use NTAS with MS SQL Server and admittedly, it works great. All our file service and printing is done by Novell, and it looks like we're going to keep it that way. We don't see enough benefit to change to NT, although we do see enough benefit to use it in addition to Novell. I don't see it as a "This or That" issue. Do you make your users choose between Word Perfect and Word ? It's kinda the same thing with NOS's lately. They can all coexist peacefully, each doing their own special thing. We don't use any OS/2 File Server stuff, but we do use it as an application server. NT DOES NOT run DOS apps very well, and we have a lot of in-house DOS apps that need to be served. Our communications gateway is Netware Connect. I don't have the direct experience to say it works better than NT's RAS, but I've heard it works better. NT seems to be more nicely integrated with Chicago and Workgroups, for this purpose however. 150 Users ? If you go NTAS, make SPECIFIC PURPOSES for your NT servers. Don't try and make one or two do all kinds of things, and don't try and use one big central one unless you want to try multi-processing hardware. Making a hybrid has been fun, not totally easy, but it all works pretty much by the book. What are your people trained for ? Windows, and NT, or Novell background ? NT is cool 'cause you can CLICK until it works, even if you don't have the world's greatest networking background. Novell needs a little more esoteric occult type knowlege and experience - BUT there are an awful lot of Novell CNE's and good network vendors - I'm even considering UnixWare for certian applications. There is Novell for OS/2, so the OS/2 box runs as a Novell server. It can still do OS/2 things while serving as Netware. Hope this helps. I guess, if you're a novice and you need to make it go yourself personally, you may opt for NTAS. Otherwise, if you're like me, you'll build your fundamentals on Novell, and add whatever odd-ball stuff later. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 12:12:43 -0800 From: Ken Eshelby Subject: Re: Should we go Novell or NTAS? >>Virtual Memory is NOT a plus, as far as I'm concerned. If my server needs >>more RAM, then i'll give it more RAM. Using (relatively) slow disk access >>for RAM paging simply cuts the thruput of the server to an abysmal level. >> >>If you're running server-based applications that are infrequently used >>(e.g., backup) then use a scheduler to load and unload it as needed. >> >>> >>>Not only that, but I was thinking today (lots of smoke in the air) that the >>>obvious thing that Netware seems to be missing is ... VIRTUAL MEMORY. >> >>This is another place were you can see NetWares orgigin. It is a specialized >>file/print and application server. It's not meant to run software that is >>infrequently used. Of course, today app servers get more an more common, >>and you end up with applications that runs not very often, so Virtual memory >>starts to get useful on an application/file server too. >> >>(The specific backup case is easily fixed with 'cron'-programs for NetWare, >>btw.) >A scheduler, cron, or whatever, requires me to think about what has to run >when and is an unnecessary complication, particularly because it's not >included with ths OS (and not to mention, a giant step backwards). The >machine should take care of things like this AUTOMATICALLY. No wonder >nobody likes programming application NLMs for Netware (compared to NT). >Like it or not, magnetic MBs are cheaper than silicon MBs and our >applications have continued to grow beyond what can economically be held in >silicon MBs. A server OS should be able to dedicate certain RAM to caching >and have other RAM for applications be page-able. That doesn't impair >performance and solves the RAM problem painlessly. > >Carl Houseman, Senior Network Specialist, Network Services Hi Carl (all), Sorry to dredge up this (part of the) thread again, but I think it touches upon some issues important to an "X vs. Y" argument- I've commented on some things I'm continually learning as a network engineer. I've tried to preserve this thread as best as I could... (Necessary "Where I'm Coming From" Stuff) I manage about 4 LANs at any particular time, in various capacities, and have found no reason to move towards a networking operating system that serves files/printers/applications and provides integral management features (knock on wood!). Our databases are house on systems optimized to house databases, and our access tools are developed to access these systems. Our model reflects some $$ available, so we do have a certain amount of freedom to not have to rely on an integral LAN-based solution for many of our production system requirements. (The Plug, with Reasoning) In that sense, I have yet to find a better file server than NW 3.12. I need fast/reliable file service, and Netware 3.12 seems to be the best *for that requirement*. However, I do agree with you that some value-added features would make management a little easier. The problem that I see arising is that the focus can shift away from the core of Netware, the file server, and onto value-added components/features/"looks". In this sense, I would much rather see a slew of third party products that are developed to work within the bounds of the OS rather than the OS branch out into other services. I have implemented many a management tool for managing user accounts, our production Windows enviroment, and some simple status tools, including a CRON-PC based virus checking and sets of reporting scripts. (The Philosophy Piece) In a sense, I prefer to manage my server vs. my server ending up managing me. I would rather shoulder the responsibility of management, with tools that I either purchase or create, than tools that an OS provides- it's a large contingency problem. So, I guess this concern is really a matter of perception- do you perceive your file server as a solution to management (I took your comments about task scheduling as a piece of a bigger requirement), or as a file server? (The Trailer) Anyone that can create a product that fits my needs, whether they be management, file services or the like, gets my total respect, admiration, and, the bottom line, dollars. I have never expected an OS, and especially a networking OS, to do this alone. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 06:36:05 -0500 From: Doug Dubis Subject: Connecting NT Workstation to NetWare 3.12/4.1 - Reply >Does anybody have any information or pointers to information on >connecting an NT Workstation 3.51 to a NetWare 3.12 environment or >4.1NDS environment. Beware of Broadcast storms, if you have a lot of NW servers with multiple NICs and/or routers. NT sends out a NETBIOS / IPX Pscket 20 which can cause the storms. Check out "On The Wire" Network Computing Mag from August or September. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 16:59:21 +0200 From: root Subject: Re: NT as a file server This maybe off topic but I feel it needs to be said about NT on the Novell list. We've used NT "so called advanced server" 3.51 & believe me you're going to suffer if you do not get the additional add-in's for it. 1st of all it does NOT support transaction tracking - If the server crashes it WILL corrupt files - sometimes files that were'nt open for days. The file-corruption is no joke it is a reality. There are 3rd-party add ons to get transaction tracking working but we did not try them. 2nd of all there are no way to undelete files on NTFS once you delete a file its disk blocks are allocated to a file called free-store that you will find nowhere on the system - again there is no software available for it from MS you have to get 3rd Party sw. 3rd of all there is no way to disable logins other than the login times - no fix for that. There is also some kind of memory leak I could not locate in any driver but the mem usage kept creeping up & up & .... Oh yes there is also no quotas & if you share any dirs of the boot drive be sure not to fill it up - remember OS/2 chashing if the swapfile cannot grow when it needs to - Well NT has the same problem. NT is basically Lanman 2.1 mixed with Windo$e & slOwS/2 1.3 put on steroids & called an OS because it does not use DOS. Oh yes there's one more thing trustees have to be added recursively into subdirs or the previously acting trustee rights will still be active one layer deeper. Anybody can flame me on this one but NW beets NT anytime. The conversion from lanman 2.1 to NT took 2-3 weeks because of hassles with their migration util - it crashed the OS/2 1.3 machine every 30 minutes. The conversion from NT to NW with restructuring of the data on the server took 7 hours. The NT server ran at 60 - 80 % utilization quite frequently & for a long time. The only clients functioning properly is were WFW but since a large department were using OS/2 we got a taste of the BAAAD!!! OS/2 client - we had to hack the client & use PROTMAN from IBM Lan req to get it working... The other problem is about Netbeui & workgroups. Do not add more than 40 workstations in a workgroup & if the whole of the network is larger than 40 workstations pse consider something else because then the performance drops about 40% Bennie Venter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 20:01:28 GMT From: David Chamberlain Subject: Re: Windows NT or Novell 4.x? >I am currently running 100 user 3.12 LAN with heavy DataBase use. I have >been confronted by the Director of IS about going to NT. Any thoughts? I would ask your IS Director what he expects to get from going to NT. We recently made the switch. Before we switched I was given all of these wonderful reasons. Here are some results. Reason: It will perform better. Result: We went from a 66 Mhz 486-DX2 with 64MB of RAM on an EISA buss, a Mylex EISA DAC960 disk array controller and a 3Com EISA FDDI nic; all running NetWare. We went to a 133 Mhz Pentium, also with 64 MB of RAM on a PCI buss, a Mylex PCI DAC960P disk array controller and a Network Peripherals PCI FDDI nic, running Windows NT. It got visibly slower. Reason: It is easier to manage. Result: With NetWare, I used the following programs: SYSCON, PCONSOLE and RCONSOLE; to manage the NetWare server. I could log in and run these programs from any workstation. With NT, I use File Manager, Event Viewer, Server Manager, RAS Admin, Print Manager, User Manager and Performance Monitor. Since all of these are NT programs, I have to come back to my workstation or the server to manage anything. I also have to remember to use Server Manager to resynchronize the Domain everytime I make a change to user settings. I have to use File Manager to manually copy the login script files to all of Domain Controllers, because if I don't, I must wait 5 to 10 minutes for Directory Replication to work. When I want to set user's access to directories on the server, I have to set each directory ACL (Access Control List) individualy. This is because NT ACL's are non-hierachial, and if you use File Manager to copy ACL's to sub-directories, it erases any other ACL's that may be in the directory. Final Word: I could go on for hours. My advice to you is to clearly define the objectives you want to achieve by using Windows NT. Then learn enough about NT to know you are achieving the objects, and understand what you are giving up. ------------------------------ From: rgrein@halcyon.com (Randy Grein) Subject: Re[2]: packets flowing at startup To: netw4-l@bgu.edu Date: 1/17/96 5:42 PM >Randy, > >You brought up something I would like to do.... And I was hoping that >you might have some information for me on doing it. I would like to >use Win 95 from home to attach to a Win 95 machine in the office. I >currently have a Xyplex remote access server, which supports PPP for >our home users. I would like to be able to see the Win 95 >workgroups/domains from home. What would need to be enabled to allow >this through the Xyplex (It acts as a router)? I know this is kinda >off the topic of Netware 4.1, but I am curious nonetheless. John, I don't really think this is off topic too much. The easy way to do this is install an NT server with a modem and do RAS. Yeah, not practical, but it's the easy way. MS can use tcp (hahahahahahahahaha) to do this type of connection, with a ppp link on a third party router, but: You'll need to give the PPP link an IP address You'll need to set up your home machine for a dialup link, attach tcpip to it (hint: look in the control panel, under networks) set up an LMHOSTS file naming your office machine log into the workgroup at the office pray, pray pray I haven't done this myself yet, but the proceedure should work. "SOAPBOX WARNING - IF YOU'RE PUT OFF BY VALID TECHNICAL CRITICISMS OF MICROSOFT, DON'T READ THE FOLLOWING" The reason for the laughter earlier is MS tcp connections; it's the biggest joke I've seen, with the exception of the near-universal acceptance of this junk as "modern networking". The reasons for the above convolutions are Netbios on TCP - Name resolution relies on either broadcasts, point to point, or a combination, and of course only between netbios machines. Broadcasts are filtered out by routers (bet you didn't know that, did you? I didn't until I started working with it), to keep down traffic, so you have to preconfigure an explicit ip address to get across. That's where the LMHOSTS file comes in. If anything changes, you've got to change it. Of course, if routers used netbios we wouldn't have the problem - we just need to replace all the routers in the internet with quad pentium NT boxes! (GBG, ROFL) Seriously, this is a major problem - if anyone comes to you claiming that NT has native tcp support and therefore is better than netware on a WAN, you now know how to laugh in their face. NT also has some shortages with IPX - IPX/SPX emulation is still spotty, with several known problems, it doesn't handle LIP (large internet packets) or NLSP, and it STILL uses netbios on top of ipx. "END OF SOAPBOX" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 20:48:29 -0800 From: "Richard K. Acquistapace" Subject: Re: Novell vs. Windows NT If you read LAN Times, pick up the January 22, Vol. 13, issue 2. Begin your homework on page 65. You will get an idea of how 4.1 stiffles NT. Don't base your choice on an article or one persons opinion (although I would prefer NetWare). You have a lot of learning ahead of you. It's your decision. Go Novell! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 21:26:50 -0800 From: Todd Scheven Subject: Re: Windows NT vs Netware >Anybody have any thoughts on whether a person should use Novell or >Windows NT? According to "people that know" at Comdex PacRim last week, Netware will remain the standard NOS for file and print services and NT will be utilized in conjunction with NW as an application server. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 08:31:51 -0800 From: Mark Schoonover Subject: Re: Novell vs NT? ( Long ) I'm sure you're getting big responses to this question, but in a way, you're comparing apples and oranges. Netware was designed from the ground up to be a file/print server, while NT is designed to be an application server with file and print services included. I could give you a laundry list of the differences between the platforms, but in a nut shell, this is what I've been using to determine which system to use. If you're looking at using any sort of application that requires an application server ( Like a back end database, CAD/CAM system, document imaging systems etc. ) that requires server based processes, ( much like UNIX ), then NT is possibly the best choice. I'm saying possibly simply because I don't know if running applications on the server are the priority. If you need an equal amount of performance in file/print services as well as applications, then NT can still provide that for you, but at a cost of more hardware. Possibly SMP with gobs of RAM. If you need the best possible file/print services, then 3.12 is tops in that area. NT and 4.1 ( I can feel the heat coming on this one! ) are pretty much neck and neck in terms of performance of file/print services with one processor. By adding more processors, and keeping the amount of NICs/SCSI cards the same, then NT will start to edge out 4.1. I use all three on a daily basis. Most of the servers are Compaq Proliant 1500s, all with 64MB RAM. The one thing that I have noticed with NT is that when an application goes south, it doesn't bring down the NOS like a bad NLM can do to 3.12, just the application crashes. SO! Which is best for you? That's harder to answer without knowing your environment. Comments are welcome. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 11:12:44 -0600 From: Chris Parker Subject: Re: Novell vs. Windows NT >Anybody have any thoughts on whether a person should use Novell or >Windows NT? Background first - I am a CNE and MCP (Microsoft Certified Professional (for Windows NT Server)), for whatever those certifications are worth...? My company has 6 Netware Servers and 3 NT Servers; all connect to a large WAN (also to Legacy systems...) Netware is the primary file, print, and application server. NT is used primarily as a SQL server, but also does some of the file, print, and application services. For my organization Netware has a purpose and NT has a purpose; they coexist peacefully (and rather nicely and that.) I have set up LANs with Netware and NT (seperately.) Each NOS works great if it is setup correctly and you understand the limitations each has. For a small network (like yours) EITHER will work fine. That said, other factors should be considered in the decision: Who is going to support the system Make sure there is a reseller/consultant in your area who can support it WELL How important is security Chart the security model of both NOSs NTs model will vary dramatically depending on the client (NT workstation and Win95 clients being strongest) and file system. NTFS offers file system security, FAT doesn't. These are just a few examples. Your local expert consultant in each NOS can tell you more. Know what features you want out of your NOS. You seem to know your basic requirements (as you stated in the message). As one respondent suggested, have a reseller setup a network with each NOS. Have them show you administration on each. Again, know the limitations and methods of each system. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 07:30:06 GMT From: "John D. Gaddis CNE" Subject: Re: Multiple servers, logins >"I have two servers, each governed by the same nds structure. >Is it necessary to have a user to be logged into each of these >servers to access their resources..." > >Actually, I should have stated my concern as whether or not accessing the >resources of each of the services under the hood of the NDS must require >a tick on the concurrent license utilization on each of the servers. >I have several users that need to concurrently access several servers, >but I'm not happy with their having to utilize that many licenses. Am I >just cheap or am I not fully utilizing the features of nds? thanx. NDS is structured so that one licensed connection is used to login into the tree. Not a server at all, that is Bindrey al-la 3.1x and down. NDS is a global three dimensional database that is object oriented linking each and every server in the tree structure. If they have access to the resource then once they have logged into the "TREE" they have access to any "Leaf object" that resides in any "Container Object" that they have rights too... Also if you do not upgrade every server at the same time you can have up to 12 - 3.12 servers in a net sink cluster. This will place the bindrey information into the tree so that they can access the tree without unneeded connections (attachments). There are many third party books that would be a good thing for you in your curve with 4.10... It is the best and NT bites outright! Although I have been installing NT at customer's requests. Getting my MCPS with NT 3.51 Srv and WKST but that is only because of all of the fools jumping into the deep end. Lot of money dragging them out and giving the LANs CPR! Grin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 08:06:38 -0800 From: "Robert S. Sfeir" Subject: Re: ...latest patches & upgrades... >You are right that 4.1 is a new paradigm for networking, c.f. 3.x but >while it more readily handles large networks, it is an excellent system >for a single-server, 25 node network. NT Server can also handle a single >server, 25-node network reasonably well. But if people are installing 4.1 >"...without thinking and planning" how does NT Server become "the future"? >Does it not need thinking and plannlng??? Adding to this, I've seen how NT handles mac platforms (if you call it handling) and it's nowhere near what Netware 4.1 can do in speed and reliability! The difference in speed between 3.12 and 4.1 in my network environment, single server 30 users, graphics production and database applications, is well worth the "Upgrade". To top it all off, NWAdmin it self is worth the money to manage ANY netware network!... Who wants to stay in dos for the rest of their Administration career, certainly not me! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 11:02:59 -0800 From: Randy Grein To: "NetWare 4 list" Subject: Re: Application Servers >I read that Windows NT is a good application server and Netware is not, >but what is the definition of an application server? What follows may be offensive to MS loyalists or MIS managers. These thoughts are my own, and condense what I've learned in the past 7 years in computing. Feel free to correct, comment or blast away. (Soapbox on) Others have answered the question well, but I'd be careful accepting the above claim without a little thought. (No putdown on you, Steve) Netware servers have been used as application servers since before Windows 3.1, and the applications available to do so are becoming affordable, easy to use and fairly common. Oracle, Groupwise, MHS, Soft Solutions, and Laserfishe are just a few of the applications running on Netware servers. The claims about NT application services generally revolve around RPC support, MS SQL and the admittedly good VB tools - in other words, you can 'roll your own' application in house. This is what I keep hearing about from Redmond and the MIS types, anyway. Of course there are available applications using these features, and I believe that's what most of us would be interested in. How many of us have the time to write, debug and maintain an inhouse, mission-critical application, much less put it on a client/server platform? Darn few outside of the fortune 500. Even they are having pretty slow going. Witness the problems with that English bank, (NatWest I believe), which has dropped just such a project after running WAY over budget and schedule without any usable results. In fact Novell has been crowing that they just threw out NT and are replacing it with Netware 4.1. Tthis isn't so much a Microsoft or NT problem, however as an indictment against the high complexity do it yourself projects that are beloved by MIS departments. Such overruns are common in the mainframe world, now they're creeping into networking. I would suggest considering the available applications you are interested in, then round file the general recommendations of the pundits. If it's only available on one platform, the issue is pretty well settled. If you have a choice (even between similar applications on different platforms) then consider the reliability, security, management and performance of the applications on that platform and how well it responds to performance tuning. Demand evidence of scalability with the desired configuration; this is one of the most misunderstood issues. Nothing scales well much beyond 1 order of magnatude, and few do that well. NT server, for example generally requires 4 processors to double the performance of one (with extra RAM and drives), so be aware that the standard answer to the speed issue has been DEC Alpha. NetWare SMP, on the other hand is showing linear scaling through 4 processors (according to Oracle), and Novell has promised to release new information shortly showing better performance beyond 4 processors than NT. This last is a claim from marketing, so use salt with it. At least they're fairly accurate for marketing types. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:02:54 EST From: Dan Cullinan <25004@2300-S-1.PORTS.NAVY.MIL> Subject: Re: Which is better Win NT or Novell >It seems that Win NT can do more than Novell so is there any reason >to use Novell? Is Novell faster? Yes. PC Mag reviewed both and found that in a 100MB Ethernet server pipe, NW was more than twice as fast as NT. >It seems that you only have to pay $495.00 for a Win NT server and >just buy windows for every client which would make an NT server >cheaper. I guess it depends on the numbers of users... You don't pay for the NW client, just the server. Will one balance the other?? Maybe. >Can anyone tell me if these are true? >What are the best reasons to stay with Novell? Dependability... It's worked well since I've used it [1988] and NT is a relative newcomer (with Microsoft's network history, I'm staying in touch with what MS is doing but not recommending the jump to my clients... yet). >Does anyone know where to find more info on the NOS comparison >besides Novell and Microsoft's homepages? Try PCMAG online. They just did the review in their labs, and it's a relatively thorough testing. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:21:08 -0500 From: "Eliot T. Ware" Subject: Re: Which is better Win NT or Novell >I have been a die hard fan for Novell for years but I am beginning >to wonder if I should switch to Win NT. Please insert Joe D.'s standard dissertation on the difference between Novell and NetWare. >It seems that Win NT can do more than Novell so is there any reason >to use Novell? More what? It is true that there are more applications which run on NT Server but you need to decide what it is that you want to do on your particular server. Also, you need to decide whether you need an enterprise-class NOS or workgroup class. If enterprise then NT Server is sorely lacking in basic requirements like a real directory and a single point of login. Yes, I know that you can rig the domain relationships to emulate a directory but that still doesn't scale well when you have 30 or more servers. You'll find yourself getting a little snitty when trust relationships start dropping like flies. >Is Novell faster? In general, yes. This is highly dependent on what you're trying to do with the server. File and print services (NetWare's previous bread and butter) are faster on NetWare (regardless of M$ marketing hype). Applications which run on both platforms (and there are precious few) are usually faster on NetWare. >It seems that you only have to pay $495.00 for a Win NT server and >just buy windows for every client which would make an NT server >cheaper. You better hope Mr. Bill didn't see this one. Yes, it's true most sites implement NT Server in that manner. It's also true that's a blatant violation of the licensing agreement. NT Server licensing comes in two flavors: server-centric and client-centric. M$ provides a pricing tool (available on their web site) that will allow you to price out an NT Server setup. I strongly suggest you get it. It's very useful and eye opening. Also, many of the applications which run on NT Server require a separate client-license. In either case the cost is significantly more than $495. >Can anyone tell me if these are true? >What are the best reasons to stay with Novell? In my opinion, NetWare is still the best NOS money can buy. NDS is absolutely invaluable, the security is rock solid and performance is outstanding. However, until developers start writing applications for NetWare (seems like we've been saying that for years) NT is a fact of life. I suggest that a good basic approach is to use NetWare as a foundation (directory, security, file and print, etc.) and use NT or UNIX as an application server when it is required or when the performance is better than the NetWare alternative. However, under no circumstances would I base a network on NT Server. >Does anyone know where to find more info on the NOS comparison >besides Novell and Microsoft's homepages? All of the above is based on implementation of both platforms and my personal/professional opinion/conclusions. Take it for what it's worth. Please apply standard disclaimer protecting my employer from my rash and foolish statements. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:37:02 -0800 From: Mark Schoonover Subject: Re[2]: Which is better Win NT or Novell Actually, you're trying to compare apples and oranges. As an overview, NT is a general NOS/Application server where NW is highly optimized for file and print services. The best approach to determine which way to go is to decide WHAT you want to do with your network. I've found that NDS has it's ups and downs just like NT's domain scenario. In a heavy environment, NW will beat NT in pushing bits around wires, where I've found 3.12 is the fastest. As far as databases or imaging systems go, _I_ prefer NT servers for these applications. Again, decide on what you need your network to do for you and go from there. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:32:44 -0400 From: "Eliot T. Ware" Subject: Re: NT CLIENTS Adam Morey wrote: >NT gateway services for Netware is excellent. None of my NT users have >accounts on any netware server, nor do they have the netware client >loaded, but have access to all the servers just as if they were an NT >share on my NT server. The NT servers logs into each server and acts as >a gateway (performace is beggining to be affeffected by the single >access point for 30 machines, I wouldn't recommend this with more than >25 NT clients) > >Out of the box NT server puts netware to shame with it's free >internet-networking ability like FTP, Web Server, 250 user Remote Access >system, Software Replication, Server Event Logger etc. Don't get me >wrong, all things being equal I know Netware serves files faster and is >a bit more stable (provided you've applied the months latest patches!), >I'm simply saying that you get a lot more bang for your buck today with >NT server. I think that you'll find that "out of the box NT server" will suddenly become a money pit if you try to support your 300+ users on one NT box. You could split it between boxes and run 150 per server. Want a shock? Ask Microsoft what type of PC they recommend to support just 150 users with all of the above software running. You are right about NetWare servers requiring you to apply the latest service packs, erh, patches. It is much more convenient to wait for Microsoft to release their patches, erh, service packs to correct problems which may or may not have been acknowledged. And, oh yes, I love nothing more than having to reboot a server to load a NIC driver in order to balance a sporadic load problem. It is so much less convenient to load NLMs on the fly. Oh yeah, there is that wonderful time spent reloading the patches, sorry, service packs whenever I change the configuration of the NT server. Maybe it's just me that has a *small* philosophical problem with memory (fast) being emulated by disk (slow) (Swap files) rather than disk (slow) being emulated by memory (fast) (File cacheing). >After all that I'll answer the original email by stating that we're >waiting to see NT 4.0 with the gui, if we like, we'll upgrade all the >windows 95 in one big operation. I don't think you mean upgrade...you really mean replace. Joe D.'s comments as to the real technical difficulty of upgrading from 95 to NT 4.0 notwithstanding, I'll accept Microsoft at their word that the word is "replace" not "upgrade". Welcome to Mr. Bill's world. >Adam Morey CNE >Hughes STX >Network Engineer >WWW.STX.COM We've got both here and I'm distressed to see good marketing mean more than good systems. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 06:00:00 CDT From: Larry Dolinar Subject: Re: NT CLIENTS (full-blown religious war alert) Mr Morey, 1 Fix your mailer, the formatting is something horrible (MS-Mail?). 2 Remember not to send attachments to the entire list, it's a terrific waste of bandwidth. 3 Spare us the blatant Microsoft endorsements on a Netware list. We have NTs here, a high proportion for our shop, only because the application dictates it, not because we believe it's the future of networking. A year of service packs and non-existent Microsoft tech support hasn't changed that opinion. 4 Remember that any OS that states "your configuration has changed; reboot now?" scarcely qualifies as the next great thing in client/ server architecture. Interesting that some of the anti-Netware logic centers on how it *used* to behave. Who in their right mind would expect a 386 OS to run on a 286 CPU anyway? 5 If Novell will stick to file/print services and Microsoft to application services, we'll all be a lot happier. Thanks for an interesting diversion. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 18:02:58 -0500 From: Mobeen Azhar Subject: Re: NT CLIENTS In my opionion both have their rightful places in the World of NOSes. I prefer Netware as a file/print server and NT as an application server. At one site we have 2500+ user accounts (running us about 800 concurrent connections) on a single Netware server (before you scream at me, there are reasons for this - and no, this is not the only server at the site). We have no problems and get great performance. We also have two NT machines running MS SQL Server. Netware is running great as a file server (I wouldn't dream of loading any database server NLMs on it) and NT is running great as a database server (I wouldn't dream of creating 2500+ user accounts on a single NT machine). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 01:48:59 -0700 From: Randy Grein To: "NetWare 4 list" Subject: Re: Question on CNE test 50-147 and 50-162 >I am also noticing that Windows NT is gaining ground, and I am wondering >if I can/should learn about it. The available texts and sample test >questions are not as readily available! Win NT isn't gaining as much ground as the media makes it sound. I've seen it ripped out quite a bit lately, and the unbiased reports I've seen show MS with it's traditional 8-10% network market share. If you don't have an immediate need for NT knowlege I wouldn't worry too much about it, as most of the important parts need to be changed before it becomes a viable NOS. Just a few examples: MS JUST added RIP support to their TCP implementation. Up til now NT relied on static route tables edited by hand. They still don't do anything with modern router protocols. By the time this is added you won't recognize the configuration, methods or anything else. The domain structure is on the way out, but won't be replaced for another year minimum (probably 3 years real time). Nothing has been said about the structure or methodology of the directory service that will replace it, but it is certain that it will bear no resemblance to the existing Domain architecture. MS plans major changes to the OS, objectifying it, and the interface by making it a web browser. New capabilities, new limitations, new methods. My read is that they've stated that they need to replace the naming and security services, the OS, upgrade the core NOS, and replace the interface. What, pray tell is left? The result is that if you learn NT now and don't use it you won't recognize the product in 3-4 years. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 10:49:39 +0100 From: Eric Hall Subject: Re: NT vs NW >We have been using Novell Netware for several years, now we are >upgrading our server (25user) and it is suggested that we change to >Windows NT. For a brand-new 25-user LAN, NT makes a good choice. For an existing NetWare 3.x site, NT makes for a lousy upgrade choice. For a complicated environment with multiple servers, NetWare 4.x is your best bet. NT is like NetWare 2 used to be: It was simple enough for any idiot to use, so most of the idiots did (instead of using UNIX or the like). Now NT fills the newbie market better than NetWare 4, which is too complex to be useful in small shops. But the resource requirements of NT over NetWare 3 (for the same level of return in perfomance) are far higher, and the thing is not necessarily any easier to administer. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 10:41:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Frank Estes To: netw4-l@bgu.edu Subject: Re: NetWare vs Windows NT Server For those interested in a more practical comparison of NetWare and NT, you must see LAN Times May 13, 1996 issue. As we all know, NetWare is faster. LAN Times did a test with Oracle 7.2 on equal server boxes, one running NetWare 4.1 and the other running NT. NetWare was consistently 12% faster. Also, CPU utilization was around 40% for NetWare and 80 to 100% for NT! Many other comparisons are made as well. Also, this week's Infoworld compares the betas of Green River and NT 4.0. It is funny that this Beta 2 of NT 4.0 is LESS stable than Beta 1! The executive summary cons for NT 4.0 are "stability woes and no real directory service." Our friends at MicroSoft have conveniently renamed their infamous domain service as NT Directory Services. Wow! Just like that, MS marketing has transformed domain services into directory services! Anyway, Randy Grein is right (as usual) about the priority of learning NT Server being low for just the reasons he stated. When and if it becomes necessary, I will learn NT. Finally, MS will dominate the desktop, although Java may minimize their importance, and Novell should continue to dominate the NOS arena. Since MS wants to put Novell out of business using their typical predatory capitalistic ways, I would like to see Novell become more aggressive with them and knock them out of the NOS market for the third straight time! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 09:00:49 -0400 From: RTaylor163@aol.com To: netw4-l@bgu.edu Subject: Re: NetWare vs Windows NT (Not Today) (Not Tomorrow) Server In a message dated 96-05-30 10:49:53 EDT, you write: >MS wants to put Novell out of business using their typical predatory >capitalistic ways, I would like to see Novell become more aggressive with >them and knock them out of the NOS market for the third straight time! I went to heads up NT vs NW4.1. Well this was the first time I had seen NT in 4-5 years. What realy gets me is this is put out by microsoft. -No drag & drop -DOS Based Mail setup And basicaly NT looks to be like a glorified peer to peer system. Yes I to feel I'll learn NT when I have to -Roger ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 07:57:31 -0700 From: Randy Grein To: "NetWare 4 list" Subject: Re: NetWare vs Windows NT (Not Today) (Not Tomorrow) Server >A thorough database comparison. There's been a lot of hype about NT >being tuned for DB performance. Scott, a LOT of people have asked for this, I'll have to do it, now! The amusing thing is that you're correct about the hype, but I will say that Gupta and Oracle both have stated emphatically that on the same hardware their databases are WAY faster on NetWare than anything else. Add to that hardware vendors claims about NT scalability dropping rapidly after 2 processors and 8 being impractical, it would be interesting to actually check it out. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 07:57:34 -0700 From: Randy Grein To: "NetWare 4 list" Subject: Re: NetWare vs Windows NT (Not Today) (Not Tomorrow) Server >There was a claim in LAN Times that sometimes NT domain services is easier >to manage for workgroup configurations than NDS. Is this true or do they >not understand how to configure NDS on a smaller scale? You've got it right. I've done both, and NDS is definitely easier! Rights, login scripts, user definitions, they're all easier with NetWare. It's just that NT isn't THAT much harder if you have a 10 user workgroup. If you have a 50-100 user workgroup, watch out! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 23:47:11 -0700 From: Randy Grein To: "NetWare 4 list" Subject: Re: Question on CNE test 50-147 and 50-162 >To basically ignore NT as Randy suggests will not help you in any way >shape or form. > >I think this advice is as ludicrous as saying "Ignore Novell...NT will >be the NOS of the future." (I've actually heard people say that). The >want ads are plastered with people looking for both Novell AND NT >experience. I NEVER said to ignore NT. The original question was regarding someone who has no present need or use for the knowlege; in that case they'd be much better served studying protocols and WAN stuff. Far, far more jobs available for protocol jockeys who happen to know Novell (or NT), and at much higher pay. Now if you happen to be an SNA guru, you can pretty much name your price - I've seen ads over the past couple of years offering at over $120 k for that mix. My points, which remains valid are these: 1. Microsoft has made three serious attempts on networking in the past 10 years; 4 if you count WFW/Win95. First came MS Net. When this failed they moved the protocol to OS/2 and built Lan Manager. Lan Man failed to capture much market, so they ripped out the guts again and put it onto NT. Each incarnation has been hailed as "the NOS of the future"; yet MS marketshare has stayed the same. 2. Long range plans for NT and Win95 have been announced long ago and the course appears to be stable: Replace Domains with an as yet unspecified Directory; rebuild the networking so it's more reliable; replace the disk structure with an object oriented structure; then objectify the entire OS. 3. With the depth and scope of knowlege we need to maintain as networking experts it is essential that we concentrate on those areas that will be most productive, both short term and long term. In 5 years someone with current knowlege in NT will find that knowlege useless except as general/historical knowlege the same way Lan Man 1.0 is useless today. The same effort applied in another direction such as advanced protocol analysis and WAN design would still be useful. Please note that this does NOT apply to those of us who must support the current product, or who see a near term need. I am for example an MCP and nearly finished with my MSCE, but I work for a consulting company where I need that knowlege to support existing customers. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 13:01:45 -0600 From: Joe Doupnik Subject: Re: Comparisons >Having worked with both peer-to-peer and Netware LANS I feel that for a >small company with little or no budget, a peer-to-peer N/W would work out >a cheaper option. Products such as Lantastic cost only a few pounds (or >dollars #:-} ) and is easily upgraded to accomadate extra users. You >do not even need a dedicated server (if you are prepared to take a >performance drop when traffic gets heavy). Security can be a problem if >you are not careful since with peer-to-peer evrybody's machine (including >local drives) can be seen by other users on the N/W. > >Although I have used products like Novell Lite and Lantastic, I still >prefer the option of buying a small Novell licence (5 or 10 user) and >getting the company to streach its budget slightly. Performance seems >better especially under heavy printing loads and other traffic. ---------- Without meaning to extend the discussion, I can't help but remark on how often the "cheap purchase/ease of initial installation" plays the dominant role in selecting peer-to-peer networking software. All that is what I term "initial contact" stuff, and is of much less importance than "what can we do with it, and what will it do with us" plus "what is the real cost to the organization of behaving this way." The last phrase is the most important item, and it includes vulnerability of all shared data to any and all mishaps. Penny wise and pound foolish is the outfit exposed this way. Joe D. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 16:41:26 -0600 From: NWNEWS@novell.com (NetWare News) Subject: NetWareNews Week in Review May 22-29th 2. Biggest change in Windows NT Server 4.0 is its version number "NOS vs. NOS" InfoWorld, May 27, 1996 (cover) "I really liked NWAdmin's improved editing capabilities [in Green River], which allowed me to do bulk updates on multiple users or containers... Unlike Green River, NT 4.0's administration is apparently not slated for improvement until the much-hyped Cairo appears sometime later this century... NT 4.0 is basically a cosmetic upgrade that adds Internet capabilities to Version 3.51... The two most notable changes other than the interface are the addition of the distributed common object model -- a technology that looks interesting but has little practical impact today-and video drivers move to unprotected kernel memory. This move make sense in NT Workstation, but not in NT Server; to preserve the common driver model, Microsoft has compromised NT Server's stability for NT Workstations performance. "Windows NT will not be going much further without a real directory service." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 17:18:53 -0600 From: NWNEWS@novell.com (NetWare News) Subject:NetWare / Windows NT Server Topic: NT is Four to Five Times Slower Than NetWare When Running Communications Week Benchmarks Excerpted from Communications Week, April 29, 1996 More Proof That Windows NT Server Transfers Files Slower Than NetWare The real reason we were having trouble was Microsoft Windows NT Server. We already uncovered that NT doesn't handle file and print serving as well as Novell NetWare, and during the course of our Pentium server lab tests, we quantified it with CommWeek's benchmarks. It appeared that Windows NT Server was four to five times slower running our benchmarks than an equivalent server running Novell NetWare 4.1 SMP. . . . Right now, though, I think it's safe to say that NT Server doesn't compare favorably. The most convincing event was almost an afterthought. After finally getting a decent video feed (it required the DPT controller that won last week's comparison) I wondered if I might be asking the server for too much. Before I put everything away, I set up a Novell NetWare server to feed the same video. Time constraints forced me to use an old Gateway 2000 EISA machine with a 486 CPU and 32 megabytes of RAM. Although the NetWare server was much slower than the NT machine, both in terms of processor and system bus, it did share a similar SCSI controller, an older version of the DPT SmartCache aimed at EISA. It passed the video test with flying colors. We kept adding workstations until we ran out of video-capable lab stations and continued to get good video with minimal frame loss. Now, we're not exactly comparing apples to apples here. The machines weren't even in the same class, for example. Likewise, the system buses were different, there were differences in memory, and the Gateway didn't have any AV-quality drives. So we can't consider this a definitive test, although we are certainly getting some strong indications that Windows NT isn't suited for the demands of high-performance file transfers. These and our earlier results make it obvious that further study is necessary. Naturally, I'll tell you about it here. In the meantime, if you need performance in handling large files, you might want to wait a while before switching to Windows NT Server. Our preliminary indications show that it's dramatically slower than NetWare when performing those tasks. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 17:12:41 -0600 From: NWNEWS@novell.com (NetWare News) Subject: NetWareNews: Reality Check--C2 Security Topic: When Looking at C2 Security for a Microsoft Windows NT Network, Look No Further Than Windows NT's Own Messages Current C2 Status of Microsoft Windows NT Server The National Computer Security Center (NCSC) is the single authoritative voice on the subject of C2 certification. The Red Book C2 certification process (network environment) does not actually begin until an Evaluation Agreement (EA) has been signed by the vendor and the appropriate government organization and sent to the NCSC. Novell's EA was sent to the NCSC in August 1995 and NetWare is expected to be C2 Red Book compliant for its next version Green River, which will be released in the fall of 1996. As of May 9, 1996, no public letter of agreement has been posted by the NCSC indicating that NT certification for C2 Red Book (complete trusted network) has started or is in process. Below is a screen shot of Microsoft Windows NT 3.51 with a C2 Configuration Manager message (C2 Configuration Manager can be found on the Windows NT Resource Kit). Microsoft's status is therefore the same today as it was in July of 1995 as per the NCSC announcement: "A network configuration of the Windows NT platform is currently pending evaluation agreement." Although some reports from Redmond may imply otherwise, Windows NT has gained C2 certification as a standalone workstation or server only. One only needs to observe Windows NT's own messages to discover that Windows NT is not secure for networking. "Of course, we fail to see the benefits of NT Server when it's not connected to a network." LAN Times, May 13, 1996 p. 70 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 00:16:40 -0700 From: Randy Grein To: "NetWare 4 list" Subject: Re: UDP Enabling Issues/Good NT Server Mail List? >Yeah, keep the NT on the back-end, as an application and communication >server, with Netware 4.1 on the front-end for NDS, file, and print >services. You're administration budget and mobile users will appreciate >it. It's best to use products for their strengths and stay away from >their weaknesses. Yeah, except that I've heard it's not so hot for a comm server, and it's suitability as an app server is questionable, given the NT inefficiency with hardware. Of course, if you MUST run the MS SQL server, then it's the only game in town... . ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 16:32:06 -0600 From: NetWare News To: netwarenews@NetPub.COM Subject: Week In Review 2. NDS more scalable, manageable than NT domains "NT Server's Growing Pains" Byte Magazine, July 1996 (page 137) "Directory services and domains are two different ways to deal with the problem of finding a needle in a large haystack. NetWare 4's NetWare Directory Service (NDS) does it by handing you the needle when you ask for it. NT Server uses domains, which basically tell you to look in a smaller haystack. Clearly, NT has much growing to do in this area. . . . "Worse, the number of two-way trust relationships grows geometrically. It's N times (N 1), where N is the number of domains. Six domains require 30 trust relationships (see the figure 'Tangled Domain Trusts' on page 138), 50 domains require 2450 trust relationships, and 100 domains require 9900. That's a lot of relationships to set up and administer... "If the PDC [primary domain controller] is down or unreachable, administrators cannot update domain information until they manually intervene to promote a BDC to become the PDC. This makes the PDC a single point of failure. . . . Because NDS replication doesn't depend on a single, primary database, it has no single point of failure. . . . "Here's another limitation to NT's domains: Moving an NT server from one domain to another requires you to reinstall the OS. To move a NetWare server to a different branch of the directory tree, you merely indicate your change in Novell's NWAdmin software--a point and click operation. Similarly, you move resources (e.g., users and printers) in NT by deleting the entry in one domain and adding the entry in the other domain. NWAdmin makes such chores a drag-and-drop operation." Sidebar figure: Tangled Domain Trusts "With NDS, each site can access network resources at any other site, which means a six-site network needs only six connections. The NT domain model requires trust relationships between each site for total access to resources. A six-site network needs 30 connections." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 10:40:19 +0000 From: "Andrew Sear" To: netw4-l@bgu.edu Subject: Re: Netware 4.x vs. Windows NT >I am from a rural school and will be connecting the school to the internet. >We will be handling our own e-mail accounts in the school. We are >currently using Netware 3.12 and will probably be upgrading to 4.x or >Windows NT. If anyone comments on either of the two I would appreciate >your input. It is a possibility that we may create a WAN between three >buildings, each five miles apart. Thanks for the info. This question gets a bit religous, but I honestly believe that Netware 4 is an easier to manage environment than Windows NT. It also comes down to how many servers, and what workstations you are running. NT's domain management is not that great, whereas NDS if pretty good. With a WAN in place I think you will find that NDS and the ability to partition and replicate NDS is better than the NT accounts system. Login scripts are also worth looking at before migrating away from netware, and I have heard but cannot confirm that Netware is better for setting up large numbers of accounts which you would probably experience in a student environment. NT still has a role to play in any large network, particularly if you are running application servers ( Lotus Notes, Citrix, SQL Server). We are also using NT as our workstation O/S and that is probably worth considering if your hardware can handle it. Also work out your email platform in advance, with Netware you can run Groupwise which is a fine product, but you might also be surprised by how good Pegasus Mail is. I use to run that in a university environment and with an SMTP gateway (mercury or charon) it worked wonderfully. You will possibly still need a unix box to talk to the internet, act as a POP server etc.. but I believe NT can do some of that now. The only thing I suggest on email is not to use Microsoft Mail - the one that comes 'free' with WFWG. I think it is an apalling product, MS Exchange must be better but I have no experience with it. There is a windows nt list a windows-nt@mailbase.ac.uk where you can probably get a 100% different opinion but they are entitled to that. --------- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 20:24:04 -0500 From: RogerTaylor@usemail.com (Taylor, Roger W.) To: netw4-l@bgu.edu Subject: Re: Netware 4.x vs. Windows NT >This question gets a bit religous... I don't have much NT experience but I have to say I agree with Andrew. Especially if you are planning a WAN. Netware 4.1 was made for WANs. NTs Domains can't even begin to compare to NDS as far as security or ease of administration. But this dose not mean NT has nothing to offer. I'm finding more and more LANs run both OSs. I don't know exactly what NT 4 has to offer but I am not impressed with 3.51. Remember Novell researched Domain technology and dumped it. Besides if your comfortable with Netware 3.12 (your current NOS) then stepping up to NW4.1 will be easier and more economical from a training and administrative point of view. --------- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 21:01:58 -0600 From: "Mike Avery" To: DDSPECKEEN@aol.com, netw4-l@bgu.edu Subject: Re: Netware 4.x vs. Windows NT What's better? NetWare 4.10 or Microsoft NT? Gee, what's better, a hammer or a saw? A sports car or a dump truck? It kinda depends on what you're going to do. If you need to pound and pull nails, a hammer fits the bill. If you want to cut wood, a saw. If you want to drive fast and impress susceptible members of the opposite sex, a sports car is just the ticket. If you wanna move 20 tons of dirt, a dump truck is more along the lines of what you want to do. My own impressions are that NDS provides much better enterprise control than anything that Microsoft offers. As far as print and file services go, once again, Novell is much faster. As far as routing and data transfer go, NetWare is much better again. Overall, as an application server, NT wins. NetWare was not really designed to act as a shared processing resource. What about mail services? There are a number of very good email products that run as NLM's under NetWare. For school systems on a budget, it's worth noting that one of the best mailers and email systems is free. Mercury is a fine mail server, and Pegasus mail is a very nice email package. Both are free, unless you want to further David Harris' work by buying manuals from him. He will be the first to tell you that you are under no obligation to purchase manuals from him. (Site licences for Pegasus are $500.00, and the manual for Mercury is $125.00, as near as I recall.) As to other services, using free or low cost winsock based software combined with Novell's bundled WINSOCK driver is a very low cost way of getting lots of nodes on the net. As to the WAN between buildings, there are low cost ways to get a wireless 2 mbps connection between them, if you have a clear line of sight. It will run about 3 miles quite well, and 5 miles if the wind is right. NCR's WaveLAN combined with external antennas can do a very nice job for you. If you want more information, please let me know. --------- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 00:26:26 -0400 From: PowrTekSys@aol.com (Kevin C. McIntosh) To: netw4-l@bgu.edu Subject: Re: Netware 4.x vs. Windows NT There is no comparison for the front-end. Go with NW 4.1 or, this fall, the new version code-named Green River. I believe in using a product for its strengths and staying as far away from its weaknesses as possible. NTASs strength is as an application and communication server. Their DNS can't touch Novell's NDS. Of course, with Netware SMP, the gap as an application server, for both NTAS and UNIX, is closing. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 08:37:31 -0700 From: Randy Grein To: "NetWare 4 list" Subject: Re: Netware 4.x vs. Windows NT In few words, NT sucks on a WAN. MS FINALLY got it (version 3.51 with Service Pack 4) to understand the most rudementary routing protocol, RIP. Setting up for workstation access across routers is a study in the stupidity of designers that never considered that people might want to do that. You're not likely to hit NT's performance limitations if you keep to fast hardware and at least 64 megs of RAM, but plan on one server per 50 users. You CAN push it farther, but it gets expensive fast. In terms of manageability, you can forget about your login scripts. Under NT they're Batch files, and for dos/windows/win95 there's no variable logic, as in: IF %LOGIN_NAME="FRED" WRITE "YOU'RE FIRED!" There's a bit for NT Workstation, but it's a pretty spare environment. Of course this means individual login scripts for EVERY user if you want to do something as basic as map a personal directory. Finally there's rights - a user can have up to 4 different access prividges, depending on what machine they're using - DOS/Windows, NT Server, Domain controller, or local access. Other than these points, there's no real difference between the two systems, except that Microsoft is junking Domains as soon as they figure out what to replace it with, and I quote twice as long to set up an NT server as Netware, 3 times to do administration, and 4 times for troubleshooting. --------- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:01:02 -0400 From: PowrTekSys@aol.com (Kevin C. McIntosh) To: netw4-l@bgu.edu Subject: Re: Netware 4.x vs. Windows NT There's a difference between a Systems Integrator and a Systems Disintegrator. I believe Randy falls into the former category and he's right. If you strive to maintain a Win-Win situation with your clients, you'll succeed. My company walks away from LAN installs of Lantastic and WAN Front-end installs of NTAS. Yeah, we could make a lot of money installing and supporting these products, but clients get frustrated and blame/dump you way before you see any real profits. We are migrating 3 WANs, based in the Houston, TX area, that tried NTAS and are dumping it and a lot of their MIS staff for NW 4.1. I sit back and, then go in and eliminate their problems with NW 4.1. Netware 4.1 makes you look like a deity after a company has rode NTAS for a while. NTAS is not much more than LANmanager with a GUI interface. Opinion is formed from 10 years as a Senior SE, Project Manager, and Systems Integration company owner. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 00:01:56 -0700 From: Randy Grein To: "NetWare 4 list" Subject: Re: Netware and NT workstations >Has anyone got any thoughts on integrating NT workstations into an >NDS. Our environment is currently 40 3.12 servers, 500 NT >workstations running on a NT PDC and BDC using DSMN to synchronize >passwords with the 3.12 boxes. The PDC has the benefit of running >all the NT login scripts (had to replace the 3.12 ones, NT login >scripts are terrible) and provides the same 'desktop' to users if/when >they change workstations. Also 6 or more NT application servers - mostly >Notes, but SQL Base might get a presence. Exactly what type of integration are you trying to do? If it's just the client side, then help is on the way - the NT client for Netware is supposed to be out with the release of Green River. I'm supposed to get my copy tomorrow, so I'll know in a week or so. This will give you NAL, NDS, etc. You SHOULD be able to provide the same functionality for individual user interfaces on ANY NOS for NT workstation, although not having done it personally I couldn't tell you the exact steps. You're right, NT login scripts stink, but at least running NT workstation you have access to a few script variables, so you're not forced into individual batch files for every user. Now if you're trying to get the workstations AND servers integrated into NDS, I believe that is a bit farther off, but not too far. Don't forget that there's no integrated management between the NT domains and notes, exchange, ms mail or even sql server. Microsoft doesn't even have a plan for this integration yet, while Novell is promising federated partitions and the consequent foreign directory integration starting in a year. Also, those 40 NT servers should consolodate into (depending on your distribution) about 10 NW 4.1 servers, maybe less, while you may have to increase the number of servers for NT. Figure about a 4:1 ratio of required servers between the two NOS'. Finally, if you have a widespread WAN, NT is definitely less attractive. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 15:08:17 EDT From: John Taft Subject: Re: Netware and NT workstations >Has anyone got any thoughts on integrating NT workstations into an >NDS. Our environment is currently 40 3.12 servers, 500 NT >workstations running on a NT PDC and BDC using DSMN to synchronize >passwords with the 3.12 boxes. The PDC has the benefit of running >all the NT login scripts (had to replace the 3.12 ones, NT login >scripts are terrible) and provides the same 'desktop' to users >if/when they change workstations. Also 6 or more NT application >servers - mostly Notes, but SQL Base might get a presence. The NetWare client for NT does support NDS in addition to bindery. The thing you have to be careful about is when attaching to a resource you locate and connect to it via NDS naming rather than bindery. The biggest problem with NT and networking is Microsoft insists on seeing the world as a peer-to-peer relationship, not as we are used to with NetWare in a client/server with central configuration and control. The biggest problem with the Netware NT client is no support for NetWare login scripts, so we are forced to the M$ peer-to-peer model. >We are about to kick off a project to determine our upgrade path to >either Netware 4.1 or NT. My understanding is that NT workstations >do not currently integrate well (if at all) with NDS and that this >might force us to look seriously at NT. The goal is to have all our >workstations on NT over the next year or so (approx. 1800). You need to keep the requirements for workstation and server file and print separate. Don't follow the M$ marketing push that everything needs to be NT. Evaluate the requirements based on the technical merits of each environment's offerings. Remember, it is immaterial to a workstation what platform your file/print server is running on if all you see it as is a drive letter or print spool. >Now I believe that the NDS is a better environment for than NT but is >this really true if we are going to be all NT workstations. Without >Novell integrating NT into the NDS in the very near future NDS is a >bit limiting. The Novell Application Launcher is also of interest as >the last time I saw it was Brainshare '95. The answer to this question will have to do greatly with how you want to organize your network resources and security. If the idea of a directory service is what you want, Novell has that today, you will have to wait until sometime in 1997 for M$ to get theirs to market. By then, Novell's will be 3+ years old and still reliable. M$'s will be a brand-new product. What is important to you? >I see that this is going to be an issue for anyone who deploys NT >workstations on a large scale, and has the potential to shift the NOS >platform away from Novell until NT is incorporated into the NDS. Anything M$ markets has the potential to kill a better product offered by any vendor. Look at the casualties, IBM, NetScape, WordPerfect, Lotus, and the list goes on... Unfortunately, too many technology and buying decisions are made based on the M$ hype and glitz rather than reality. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 20:22:07 -0600 From: Joe Doupnik Subject: Re: Am I missing something here? >At my place of employment it was just announced that we are going to convert >entirely to Windows NT, server and client. If it's a done deal then that's it we presume. On the other hand, if you have a voice in a still depending decision then you might wish to examine some glossy adverts from both MS and Novell on the matter. From the Red Box folks have a look at Managwise (network-wide management, based on Intel's LanDesk Manager core), and for visual entertainment ask your reseller for the Novell video "Dare to Compare, NetWare 4 vs Microsoft NT server." Carry along a bag of salt, but also take notes. Then do some head scratching on scalability issues which will loom more than large in a 150 server environment. I'd visit the web sites of both vendors and collect their sundry white papers. Call your resellers and get the vendor reps to go over your request for quotation (or whatever). After collecting and sifting this material I'd hope that the folks responsible would at least list objectives and the relative merits of available solutions to engineer the matter rather than react emotionally. In addition, the near future counts for much, and it's common knowledge that MS is giving much thought to their present Lan Manager-based networking strategy. >We are a rather large health care provider with clients numbering in the >thousands connected to over 150 Novell servers. I would say that almost 95% >is for file and print services. > >One of the selling points from what I understand is that along with this, they >will use SMS to manage the desktops from a single location. > >Now, my only exposure to NT server was a week long class I attended. I am >probably being biased but it just seemed very cumbersome to set up and >maintain, at least for file and print sharing. Trusts, Trusting, domaines, >etc. You are on the right track. Don't forget to add network traffic to keep the system going, and the qty of servers to make the system robust. For NT both are big numbers, alas. Joe D. >Something seems very wrong with this picture but I am not in any position to >make a judgement since I have little practical experience with NT. I know >this is a Novell forum but I have seen hundreds of postings here on the >various trials and tribulations suffered with NT/Novell integration. I have >also read in the various trades that many companies are rethinking their >commitment to an NT infrastructure. > >Have I been so deeply intrenched in the day to day administration of my three >server, 400 node LAN that the boat has passed me by? >I would appreciate any and all feedback. Right now I am in a state of shock >and feel like one of those legacy cobol programmers who still feel that PC's >are just toys. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 11:43:19 -0700 From: "Richard K. Acquistapace" Subject: Re: Am I missing something here? >At my place of employment it was just announced that we are going to >convert entirely to Windows NT, server and client. > >We are a rather large health care provider with clients numbering in the >thousands connected to over 150 Novell servers. I would say that almost >95% is for file and print services. I'll quote LAN Times, Vol. 13, issue 18. "NT Server 4.0 is at its best as a workgroup or departmental server, with Windows 95 clients as peers". You have a large network operating system. If you have any say -- you won't even go that way. Ask Chevron as they are removing NT at this moment. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 06:11:24 -0700 From: Randy Grein To: "NetWare 4 list" Subject: Re: UGH! Win95 Client attaches to all servers in tree! >I have a lab setting with 5 netware 4.1 servers. My problem is that when >a user logs in they attach to all 5 servers and use up a license on each >one. These are not just DS connections. This is bad, considering that I >don't have enough licenses for all the machines to attach to all the >servers! This is indeed the "correct" behavior for the Microsoft client. When exploring the network it makes a connection to each server, rather than simply relying on the default server to tell it about the others. Typical microsoft networking; they still don't understand clients and servers. The ONLY fix I've heard of so far is to use the Netware client. Besides, you get a good implementation of SPX, important if you use IPX/SPX to connect to a SQL server. --------- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 22:33:43 -0700 From: Randy Grein To: "NetWare 4 list" Subject: Re: UGH! Win95 Client attaches to all servers in tree! >I dunno Randy.... the experience of the first person doesn't match >mine. Back in a previous life, we were using Win 95 with the >Microsoft drivers. While they had rough edges, they never connected >a user to all the servers - we would also have run out of user >licenses and did not. Of course, we also made sure that people only >had login ID's where we wanted them to login, which reduced any >possible problem in that area. But, '95 neither connected to, nor >logged into, all the available servers. Maybe I wasn't clear. When you browse the network explorer makes a connection to each server it finds. This is not a big deal (supposedly) for Microsoft networks because MS servers (WFW, Lan Man & NT) clear connections that aren't being used. Of course, each workstation making its own server table greatly increases network traffic. These connections are never cleared by NetWare servers, because the workstations respond to wotchdog packets. Keep in mind that these are not logged in connections, as such the users may not be defined on the server, but they have used up a connection slot. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 01:02:24 -0700 From: Danny Weiss Subject: Re: Netware 4.1 or Windows NT > ...planning to install Netware 4.1. But now, we're really worried about >what product is better for us: Netware 4.1 or Windows NT 3.51 (or 4.0): I've just been through the same problem, and here's what we decided: First, given that you're dealing with a significant number of different servers, Netware 4.1x is the clear choice for the overall network OS. You already know that the multiple server management features of NW far outpace NT. Don't bother comparing NW with NT 3.5x, you've got to look at NT 4, since there are significant differences. Though, not enough to warrant a conclusion that NT is better for your environment than NW. > First, it's really easier to find web and mail servers and others free > softwares for NT for educational and research organizations. On the other > hand, free Netware software is really difficult to find. Did someone have > this problem ? Is there cool free (like web and mail servers) software for > Netware ? Where ? Free NW software, you're kidding, right? :) I have heard of some internet shareware or NW machines but, you're generally right, there are more NT apps out there, at the moment. I'm resolving this problem 2 ways: First, NW 4.11 with the Intranetware product appears as if it will address a fair number of the internet services concerns you have -- and keep the solution in a single NW OS package with full NDS support. Our second solution, of course, is to run an NT server or workstation, fully integrated into our NW 4.x LAN, where it is clearly the best tool to use for applications support -- such as, perhaps, a web server or a platform for a more comprehensive internet access package (including SMTP and POP3 mail, NNTP news, etc. There may, in fact, be some security advantages to the second approach, since it allows you to run internet services on an NT machine, access those services via your NW network, but use the NW/NT interface as an opportunity to provide additional security between your main LAN and the internet. Unfortunately, Novell appears to remain behind MS in terms of some server features for applications support. Until NW catches up w/NT in this regard, there isn't any reason you can't run an NT server as an application server, where needed, and connect to it via your NW LAN. > I've been working with Netware for 6 years and I know NT is newer and it > doesn't have an NDS. I mean, it's easier to manage a network with NDS, but > NT power is growing each day. NT power MAY be growing, but it is still far different from NT, and each has its own strengths and weakness. On balance, NW remains the network OS of choice, particularly for multi-server environments. I don't think that is going to change anytime soon. Given that, I've adopted the mix and match policy outline above. If I need NT to run an application or, for that matter, if I need UNIX to run something, I will install the appropriate additional machine on my NW LAN and provide users access to it through NW. I'm using this strategy for a LAN to support hundreds of users in an environment that includes over 35 locations throughout the city. A final point of interest -- we're sticking with the NW network OS despite the fact that we've decided to go with NT on all of our workstations. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 11:46:35 -0500 From: Net manager Console Subject: Re: Netware 4.1 or Windows NT >First, it's really easier to find web and mail servers and others free >softwares for NT for educational and research organizations. On the other >hand, free Netware software is really difficult to find. Did someone have >this problem ? Is there cool free (like web and mail servers) software for >Netware ? Where ? To run a web/mail server on NT is a MAJOR headache (I did it for two months), it is easier/simpler/less complicated/fun to do it on UNIX. NT requires MAJOR processing power to do multi-tasking enviorments such as Web and Mail. Even Novell does require additional memory for multi-uses. Besides, since the internet started on UNIX machines, almost all of the software is designed for it. Sendmail is the current standard, and it comes in all UNIX flavors. To do internet mail on Novell, you need TCP/IP, which is built in to a UNIX machine. I use Novell for my file/data servers, UNIX for communications, an NT has a job guarentee. >I've been working with Netware for 6 years and I know NT is newer and it >doesn't have an NDS. I mean, it's easier to manage a network with NDS, but >NT power is growing each day. Please, send any sugestions directly to >myself. I've been doing the software end of systems for 3 years (as an administrator, about 17 as a user). From what I've seen of NT lately, it is mostly the famous Microsoft Hype. To run an NT server as a Web-Mail-File-Data server, you need: 1. dual pentium processors (100MHz or better) 2. min. 68 Megs FREE RAM 3. two machines 4. 4 Gigs storage We found this out the hard way. We started with one Pentium/133MHz machine with 34 Megs RAM, and as we started to add services I could watch the speed of the machine drop down to a 386/30. One weekend, I moved all the WWW/Mail services back to the old 486/60 UNIX box, and waited for the speed complaints to come in. Nobody noticed. 3 weeks, nobody noticed. Matter of fact, the speed of the WWW/Mail system jumped back up dramaticaly. One of the bosses here asked me how I did it, and I told him I just had to tweak it. I now use the NT server as a backup machine and writing desk. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 08:09:20 -0400 From: Lawrence Sobilo Subject: A bit more on NT vs NetWare -Reply The CISC vs. RISC scenario you [Dan Schwartz] present misses one point: RISC systems have very little market share. Ramifications: many industry pundants think NT as a hardware independant platform is dead. NT runs on Intel, Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC. I beleive Intel sales ar 90+%, Alpha about 5%, others 1-2%. Thye X86 architecture has been running out of gas for years now. But, Intel (and Cyrix and others) seem to find new ways to turbocharge the system. May not have the whallop of a high end Alpha, but they're cheap, prevalent, well supported, and compatible with the most software. We have some MIPS based NT systems. Shortly after purchase, the vendor dropped the line, citing inadequate market penetration. We can only run one app on the systems. Users can't run any of the common office software. We were looking more NT systems. The department manager won't even discuss Alpha systems. So, I consider Netware limited to X86 architecture to be completely inconsequential. I can get a moderately priced network that exceeds my present needs, and can grow as my needs grow. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 08:54:45 -0600 From: Joe Doupnik Subject: Re: Air Force dumps NetWare for NT >Maybe I should not say this but changes of this magnitude should be done >slowly. One step at a time so to speak. >Most probarly that is what will happen. >If not they will learn the hard way and you'll be sure of a job. ----------- You don't understand. What a three star and a bunch of workers in an office in the bottom of the Pentagon dictate does not cut much mustard with troops out of that chain of command (nearly everyone) and who have another line of bugetary authority (ditto). The office coffee pot and copy machine may have to pretend to be NT servers, and contractors will have to pay lip service, but that's nearly it. Having seen a few of the memos on the matter (thanks guys) there wasn't any obvious testing etc, but rather a preordained commandment. So what. Let them run NT for a while. The experience might do them some good. But don't interpret this as technically motivated and validated decision making, nor as a sudden change to the organization as a whole or even a tiny portion thereof. As I said before, it's a tempest in a tea pot. Joe D. ------------------------------