--------------------------------------------------------------------- NW-vs2NT.DOC -- 19971025 -- 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, 31 Oct 1996 17:24:12 -0800 From: "Richard K. Acquistapace" Subject: Networld+Interop Results of the Fight The judges decisions are in. Immediately following the keynote speech on the opening day of Networld+Interop Novell Directory Services devastated Microsoft NT Directory Service by knocking them out in a technical bout. No Microsoft representatives responded to our challenge so we were forced to ask for volunteers from the standing room only audience that had gathered to witness the showdown. After finding a team of certified network professionals, including a Certified Microsoft Engineer, the bell rang and the fight was on. As the fight began, round one required both competitors to move 10 users from one location to another. Novell convincingly won this round the demonstration showed Novell Directory Services ease of use with drag-and-drop administration. On the other hand, Microsoft NT Directory Service had to recreate each of the users in their new location and reissue their rights to the network and its resources. During round two network administrators were required to grant the president of the company immediate rights to a new color printer. However, the administrator was working in the server room--not near a workstation. Microsoft was the judges choice for winner of this round as they were able to give the president rights directly from the server while Novell had to walk to a workstation in order to grant the rights. Round three had the competitors creating a intranet directory from the existing data found in the current directory service. Novell Directory Services clearly beat Microsoft in this round by pulling directly from their data stores to quickly create an intranet directory including everything from user information to photographs and more. Microsoft was able to finish the task but only by manually entering the information that was found in their directory. In round four Novell again beat Microsoft as each was asked to grant rights to two administrators one in engineering and the other in sales. Each administrator had to have exclusive rights to their groups. Novell easily granted the rights and made the rights exclusive while Microsoft was unable to complete the operation without adding a piece of hardware and then setting up a separate domain. Novell was the clear choice for the judges in this round. The task of round five was to distribute an application to all the users in the company and then to give only the president a specific application. It was expected that Microsoft would do well with this task as they have been heavily touted as an application server. However, as the round played out it was clear that Novell Directory Services and the Network Application Launcher were going to take it to Microsoft NT Directory Service. In fact the Novell team had already completed the task and tested the applications to see that they had been distributed before Microsoft could really get going. Microsoft NT Directory Service had been KO-ed by Novell Directory Services. Of course, we knew it probably wouldn't be a very even match up. When you're not a true directory service as is the case with Microsoft NT (so called) Directory Service it's hard to compete with a world champion. So thanks to everyone that came to see the "Fight of the Century." It was both fun and enlightening. It's clear that Novell Directory Services doesn't have much to worry about from Microsoft NT Directory Service. For more information http:/novell.com/education. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 10:01:33 -0600 From: Joe Doupnik Subject: Re: Air Force dumps NetWare for NT >There has been an Air Force wide directive to switch to Microsoft >NT Server as the NOS of choice and MS Exchange as its >email/messaging package of choice. In my opinion, not a wise >choice. -------- Once again folks go off the deep end with interpretations. The entire USAF is hardly one organization, it does not change computer systems as a unit. You wouldn't believe the variety they use, from very ancient to the newest neatest toys. There are still Zenith 100's around (one of their previous "directives" on PCs, and a Z100 is only partly IBM PC compatible). What the announcement says is they hope to use more NT. Fine, let them obtain live experience, and then value judgments can be made on the results rather than on the wish. Do we see the distinction here? Joe D. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 11:17:00 -0500 From: Timm Benkula Subject: Re: Netware 4.1 or Windows NT >NT/Server has one big advantage over NetWare: It runs on more than >one platform. It runs in native mode under the DEC Alpha (AXP), MIPS, and >Apple/IBM/Motorola PowerPC platforms; as well as on the i386 pee cee >compatible. With the RISC processors you have much more CPU horsepower >available for such goodies like disk compression. > >The major downsides to NT/Server are that it uses about twice as much >CPU horsepower as a NetWare server for a given environment (connected >users, etc.); NetWare is not as "fussy" as NT with the hardware you can >run it on; and that NT's security is nowhere as good as NetWare's. These reasons here are exactly why I prefer NetWare over NT. It's like the anti-drug commercial: "I do cocaine so I can work longer to make more money to buy more cocaine so I can work longer..." I have NetWare 4.1 and NT 3.51 both running on identical hardware(except NetWare has a slower hard drive) and NetWare blows NT away. Files transfer to and from NetWare in half the time that it takes NT. Why should I spend twice as much money to get equal performance? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 11:23:23 -0600 From: Joe Doupnik Subject: Re: Air Force dumps NetWare for NT >> Once again folks go off the deep end with interpretations. The >>entire USAF is hardly one organization, it does not change computer >>systems as a unit. You wouldn't believe the variety they use, from very >>ancient to the newest neatest toys. There are still Zenith 100's around >>(one of their previous "directives" on PCs, and a Z100 is only partly >>IBM PC compatible). >> What the announcement says is they hope to use more NT. Fine, let >>them obtain live experience, and then value judgments can be made on the >>results rather than on the wish. Do we see the distinction here? >> Joe D. > > The problem is, that people higher up in the command chain will >"misinterpret" this, and try forcing NT down the >throat of those of us who are currently perfectly happy (and >productive, I might add) with Netware it would be good for us to >have something to justify not going through the "live experience" >if we don't have to. > >Darryl Wright >Dfw, Kelly AFB --------- So go get that information. Novell, amongst others, has lots of literature comparing NW with NT. Contact www.novell.com AND your NW reseller. There is even a video entitled "Dare to Compare" from Novell. It's not our (list) problem that higher highers dictate certain courses of action. On the other hand Col's acting as program managers can be extremely difficult about changing anything which affects success of the program. The track record of DoD on such matters is a sequence of hillarious (to outsiders) blunders of power politics. ISO pgms anyone? In short, for the most part this is a tempest in a tea cup. Joe D. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 13:49:08 -0400 From: Larry Hansford Subject: Re: Air Force dumps NetWare for NT >There has been an Air Force wide directive to switch to Microsoft >NT Server as the NOS of choice and MS Exchange as its >email/messaging package of choice. In my opinion, not a wise >choice. > >Somewhere, sometime on this list I seem to remember someone >mentioning a major corporation, maybe Chevron - I'm not sure, >ditching Novell and going to NT and then realizing the blunder >they'd made and switching back. Can anyone confirm this and/or >have first-hand knowledge of other such occurrences? If so, I'd >like to compile the info and send it up the chain ASAP in the hopes >of stopping a nightmare in the making for us AF net admin types. I wouldn't get too concerned about this directive -- you'll probably be retired before it bears any weight on AF programs. I retired from the AF after 22 years, and none of the directives for new ISO compliant computers and/or software were ever implemented. They still by large IBM mainframes that are not ISO compliant; they still program in COBOL, even though they dictated that by 1990 all new programs would have to be written in ADA; they still put in large, expensive dial-in networks when there is an Internet feed in the next building; they still put out multi-year contracts for PC's, which lock them into prices of the day instead of buying them locally at the lowest market price available; etc., etc., etc. Several years before I retired, I put in a network with an AT&T 3B2 Unix box, a Netware 3.12 server, and 3 IBM 4178 mainframes with Ethernet ports on the 7171 controllers so they could have local network access to the workstations, worldwide access through the Internet, and mainframe access through their dedicated IBM terminals or PC's with IRMA boards. That network is still in use today, and they are not about to replace any of it as long as it works. To answer your question, though, I would contact Novell's PR department. They publish a weekly list of "slam Windows NT" articles, and I'm sure they could overload you with the information you seek. I recently went to a Dare to Compare half-day seminar on that subject, and they had a wealth of information in the overhead slides that they used for the briefing. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 15:23:47 -0700 From: "Richard K. Acquistapace" Subject: Re: Air Force dumps NetWare for NT >>There has been an Air Force wide directive to switch to Microsoft >>NT Server as the NOS of choice and MS Exchange as its >>email/messaging package of choice. In my opinion, not a wise >>choice. >-------- > Once again folks go off the deep end with interpretations. The >entire USAF is hardly one organization, it does not change computer >systems as a unit. You wouldn't believe the variety they use, from very >ancient to the newest neatest toys. There are still Zenith 100's around >(one of their previous "directives" on PCs, and a Z100 is only partly >IBM PC compatible). > What the announcement says is they hope to use more NT. Fine, let >them obtain live experience, and then value judgments can be made on the >results rather than on the wish. Do we see the distinction here? > Joe D. Joe, Again, you have hit the nail on the head! I worked at the Oakland Army Base, MTMC (Military Traffic Management Command). I was in Long Range Plans/Operations. All of the servers are NetWare. The email package is Higgins. It was the standard for the Forces, throughout the world. There was no plan to move to NT or Exchange. I would know, as I was a member of the team that tested various solutions. As far as the equipment, the Zeniths are still there! And I believe that they are still using Multimate. Army, Navy, and Air Force utilized the same services. I don't know what the previous message is talking about. Unless Billy Gates is messaging Billy Clinton, there are things I don't know about. But, I can and will find out. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 18:25:44 -0600 From: Joe Doupnik Subject: Re: A bit more on NT vs NetWare >Good points; except that there are two major flaws: > >1) Twice the performance is not twice the money... It's typically about >1 1/3 times the cost when comparing RISC machines vs CISC machines; > >2) What happens when your CISC machine can't keep up? Add another? >And another? With RISC technology it's just beginning to really take off... >And the performance is incredible. [I see it all day long with Indigo, >PowerMac, and SPARC workstations in the graphics biz, flipping around 200 >MB photo files like bottle caps.] Good for you. Have you also thought about the network traffic component of the mixture? Ethernet, 10Mbps variety, can carry only 800KB/sec max under the best of conditions. 600KB/sec in server/client mode is doing well. 200,000KB photo / 600KB/sec = 333.3 sec or 5 1/2 minutes. Not exactly flipping things around I'd say. And this is only for read requests which are large, many KB, not the 512 Byte variety so often seen in applications. Now given this transfer rate I wonder what the server cpu loading might be like. Around my place it runs about 20% on a 486-33 EISA bus machine. Yup, not exactly in the "heavy duty workstation" league these days. Hmmm, we say together. It's not the cpu so much as the bus and the peripherals, goes the background chorus. But even then the wire fills nicely while the cpu looks around for other wires to fill. This leads me to ask a silly question: are you certain that server cpu horsepower is the primary performance control in your analyses, enough to get up on that risc/cisc swayback hobby horse? If so we'd like to learn more. If not then perhaps one of the NEWS advocacy groups would be appropriate. Joe D. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 14:11:00 -0600 From: Joe Doupnik Subject: Re: NOVELL Digest - 18 Oct 1996 >>>[I see it all day long with Indigo, PowerMac, and SPARC workstations in >>>the graphics biz, flipping around 200 MB photo files like bottle caps.] >>> Dan >> >> Good for you. Have you also thought about the network traffic >>component of the mixture? Ethernet, 10Mbps variety, can carry only 800KB/sec >>max under the best of conditions. 600KB/sec in server/client mode is doing >>well. 200,000KB photo / 600KB/sec = 333.3 sec or 5 1/2 minutes. Not exactly >>flipping things around I'd say. And this is only for read requests which >>are large, many KB, not the 512 Byte variety so often seen in applications. > > When I mentioned about 200 MB photo files being "flipped about," it >wasn't the best choice of words for a network LISTSERV... Although >appropriate nonetheless the way Photoshop handles data. A better choice of >words would have been "200 MB photo files being ground up and spit back >out. > > [snip] > >> This leads me to ask a silly question: are you certain that server >>cpu horsepower is the primary performance control in your analyses, enough >>to get up on that risc/cisc swayback hobby horse? If so we'd like to learn >>more. > > Hmmm... I've found that there are two groups of people when it >comes to RISC machines: Those who have them and know the ins & outs; and >those who don't use them on a daily basis. When one DOES use them (as I >do), then s/he'll see what it's strengths and weakness' are. > Dan Schwartz > Electrical Engineer. ---------- Dan, We are on different wavelengths. The people here could care less amount nuances on silicon. They care a great deal about what can be provide to users, NOW, at affordable prices with affordable support costs. Novell has been accused of going off in many different directions which did not lead to enhancements in their mainline products. Guilty as charged, and they realized this recently. Chasing after niche market high end workstations as file servers would be to go even farther afield seeking technical nirvana at the cost financial ruin. Since then Novell has been pouring resources into those mainline products, and the results are now emerging. They have consequently done some hard technical thinking about platforms and weddings to same. If you look carefully as an engineer you will see very large banners saying we are moving to platform independence as fast as we can push keys. Need an example here? Client32 will do for openers. The idea is avoid being locked into one frame of reference and then reinventing the wheel to move on. The managers on the list, which is the vast majority of us, have real problems to solve TODAY, with insufficent funds, insufficient support personnel, too many users, too many salespersons, too much incredibly sloppy programming by major vendors. The task is to make all this work in balance, somehow, and still get sleep now and then. Both feet are necessarily firmly on the ground. ATM is still deciding what it wants to be, and it is well over the horizon of daily use in our environments. Some use on backbones is occuring, at selected sites, but by no means is it required now. The expense is also horrid when the full analysis is done. Please don't quote cheap board prices without doing your engineering homework; such things are not cheap in dollars or pounds and are currently extremely expensive in machine resources to coverup the technical aspects. DEC Alphas are very nice machines. We have a bunch here. They are expensive to acquire and expensive to hold on to. The facts of life say such nice machines are rarely needed to perform our file serving tasks at this time. Finally, you seemed to have missed the point of my silly question. It's real world, in the round, rather than playing with neat toys. Joe D. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 00:38:40 +0200 From: "Arthur B." Subject: Re: Air Force dumps NetWare for NT >This may be a little off subject, but PLEASE help. > >There has been an Air Force wide directive to switch to Microsoft >NT Server as the NOS of choice and MS Exchange as its >email/messaging package of choice. In my opinion, not a wise >choice. > >Somewhere, sometime on this list I seem to remember someone >mentioning a major corporation, maybe Chevron - I'm not sure, >ditching Novell and going to NT and then realizing the blunder >they'd made and switching back. Can anyone confirm this and/or >have first-hand knowledge of other such occurrences? If so, I'd >like to compile the info and send it up the chain ASAP in the hopes >of stopping a nightmare in the making for us AF net admin types. That would be a mayor change of great magnitude! So they must have had a testsite and at least one base that was used as beta side before they decided to turn to NT. They must have been very very pleased about it 'cause: The advantages of turning to NT must be enormous! They must be 'cause they money involved to make the instant switch possible is huge (what would half that money do for an existing Netware platform?). Let us sum up those great advantages: Replace all existing server hardware or accept a loss in performance. Replace all existing server software (probarly clientsoftware also) Reeducate all involved personal. Buy off existing support contracts. Buy new support contracts. etc. etc. Suppose they choose to change the PCs also: Replace all existing PCs or accept loss in performance. Replace all existing software. Reeducate everybody. Export/convert/import all existing data. Export/convert/import all existing backups. Having to deal with the dumping of thousands of old hardware (store it first!) Digital communications with externals will have to be set up again. All menu's, macro's, support utils, etc. must be made again from scratch. etc. etc. And on the personal side? All over the years build up inside expert knowledge will be gone. Calls to supportteams will triple in the first year. Troubleshooting knowledge databases from years old will turn invaluable. User downtime will double/triple because of the above three. Experienced users will be beginners again. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 11:25:00 -0400 From: "QUIBELL: MARC" Subject: Re: RISC/UNIX...etc VS. Netware/CISC >When deciding on any computer system, you have to look at both the >hardware AND software as a package. On a CISC (80x86) machine, NetWare >holds a nice lead over NT and UNIX. But when you climb up to the next >level, RISC computing, one has to then ask "Where is NetWare?" All you >have are NT and various flavors of UNIX. I have a NetFrame with redundant Pentium processors running Netware 4.1 that'll blow away any Unix/NT or especially any pokie Apple server running any RISC or NOS system. It's amazing what some architectual changes made to the standard can be done and what true speed can begot with a Pentium processor. 800MegaByte busses, 12.5MB dedicated port bandwidths, FDDI..fast and wide. 1000 users running on one little, bitty, Pentium.....Let me know when RISC climbs up to this level, OK? And the best thing about it, Novell didn't have to PORT a new version of Netware to NetFrame, any version will work. Which is the way it should be.... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 03:33:03 -0800 From: "Richard K. Acquistapace" Subject: Re: Netware 4.1 32 Bit Native? >This is stupid, yet I feel the need to ask. > >I hear all this garbage about how great NT is because it's a 32 bit native >server and how it's supposed to be awsome with Pentium pros because of >their architecture... Hasn't Netware been 32 bit for a while? If so, is >its performance really improved on a Pentium Pro, as opposed to a 166 MHZ >Pentium 586? > >Seems like the Microsoft Marketing mamchine is a work again if this is the case! There's no such thing as a stupid question. Has NetWare been 32 bit? Yes, It has. As far as NT vs NDS -- NDS kicks the "butt" out of NT. You, like everyone else, are/have been hearing nothing but Microsofts' marketing departments "Vapor-talk". NT is a CPU hog. It needs twice the horsepower to run, than NetWare. You know, as well as I, that everyone "loves" Microsoft products. They do provide excellent software, eg. Microsoft Suite. And NT does do a few minor things better than NetWare. But heck, I could take a "dump" in a box and mark it a Microsoft NOS (I've got plenty of time :-)) and there will be thousands of people out in the market, especially upper management, that doesn't know apples from oranges that will buy it. NetWare 4.XX has better file, print, and application services. And will, most likely, always. Check out http://novell.com/education, for more information on the subject of NDS vs NT's DS. There is only one consideration that Novell has to deal with -- marketing. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 20:36:52 -0600 From: Joe Doupnik Subject: Re: NetWare & NT >It looks like the company I work for are interested in migrating from >Netware 3.12 to Windows NT, but there are still a few unanswered >questions. The biggest question I have at the moment is if I have 40 >Novell 3.12 servers, ranging from 486/50 to Pentium (SystemProx X/L >to Proliant 5000) will I be able to reduce the number of servers I >have if we go to Windows NT. > >It is my view that under netware 4, with proper segmentation, >I could nearly halve the number of file & print servers I have. Most >of our existing netware servers support a maximum of 150 users and >range from 6-9GB of diskspace. We are putting more and more software >on the local desktop (not my decision or preference). > >If anyone has an opinion I would like to hear it, I would be even >happier if it can be backed up with some documentation and/or >statistics. Or pointers to the relevant documentation would be >beneficial. --------------- Didn't anyone at your company look into the technical side of such a change? Good grief Andrew, that's going to be a nightmare at your place. I have a suggestion which at first glance will appear to be silly, but really is serious. Please contact your Novell office and borrow the Novell video named "Dare to Compare." Yes, it's a propaganda piece, rather well done and open, but also ladened with many well known problems of NT. Naturally some of the NDS not so nice aspects go unmentioned, but what do you want for free? The propaganda is based on truth, so please view it and get more information from both Microsoft and Novell. NT trust relationships are static and unidirectional. Every single one must be created by hand. No drop and drag. That's an N by N problem. In addition, NT servers can hold only one database. If duplication is needed for both security (robustness that is) and wire speed then each copy must go on fresh NT server box. Figure on nearly doubling the server population with NT. User information is server-specific, and when a user moves locations you personally retype all their information anew and move their files. Take a very long careful look at the NT trust models because you will be surprized at what's required in most situations. Do the same with NDS. If you shop around the trade press please read up on server load carrying capacity as the user population increases. NT does not do very well. If internal web serving is important then NW 4.11 does it much better and considerably faster. Consider security in terms of tampering. Recall that NT server is C2 rated if and only if there is no floppy and no network connection. NW 4.11 is getting C2 rating, full up, on the network. Ask each vendor for more details. Keep in mind that C2 ratings are done independently so vendors do not make those evaluations nor can they bend the results. Read the fine print, as they say. The number of NW servers needed depends on traffic as well as load and politics. Look carefully at traffic because big comms boxes cost more than NW servers. We can't do that job for you via Email. Then ask about network monitoring tools. Go get that video; you need an entertainment break. And, if you ask MS for theirs, be sure to get one of Bill Gate's Comdex presentations because they are fir$t cla$$ (I have one from about three years ago and love the production). Joe D. --------- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 19:28:38 -0800 From: Brandon Fouts To: netw4-l@bgu.edu Subject: Netware & NT -Reply With NT you'll need more hardware, more RAM and probably MORE servers to get anywhere near your Novell performance. Go to 4.1 with NDS. With NT you must setup 'trust relation' between each of the 40 servers - 40x40 is 1600 trust relations - that alone is a big job. Spend an afternoon at the Novell website and read up on the comparisons of NT vs Novell. I have friends at Boeing using a Novell server in their department and they have been 'testing' 3 NT servers to 'replace the ONE Novell Server'. Well a year later and they haven't made the move yet - still in the 'Lab' testing. Before making such a large scale change - maybe you should see if you can find anyone who has made this change successfully. Use NT as an application server? Depending on the application - sure. As an Enterprise Network OS? not me. PS: I'll probably go NT for my workstation. And I do use it to run Netscape http: server for our website - wahealthcare.org --------- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 07:11:19 -0600 From: Joe Doupnik Subject: Re: NetWare & NT >>>It looks like the company I work for are interested in migrating from >>>Netware 3.12 to Windows NT, but there are still a few unanswered >>>questions. The biggest question I have at the moment is if I have 40 >>>Novell 3.12 servers, ranging from 486/50 to Pentium (SystemProx X/L >>>to Proliant 5000) will I be able to reduce the number of servers I >>>have if we go to Windows NT. >>--------------- >> NT trust relationships are static and unidirectional. Every single >>one must be created by hand. No drop and drag. That's an N by N problem. > >I'm have no intention to defend NT in this (or any other) application >vis-a-vis NW 4.x (and I hesitate to correct Joe D.). And yes, this is a >NetWare list. However, based on my reading around NT (with some experience, >admittedly at very small sites) I think this description is misleading. MS >trust relationships, while static and unidirectional, are between "domains" >not between individual servers. The "N" here is not 40 (or 80) servers, but >1 (or perhaps 2 or 3) domains. And... > >>User information is server-specific, and when a user moves locations you >>personally retype all their information anew and move their files. > >...unless my memory is failing me (always a possibility), user information >is domain-specific. Users login to domains, and one needs only to move their >information or files when they change domains (and even then, only when the >inter-domain trust relationships prevent logging in from the new domain). ------------ Our descriptions would coalesce if there were one NT Server per domain. That puts matters closer to running NW 3, where info is indeed local to each server, but of course NW 3 does not have trust relationships to offer or receive. Joe D. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Nov 96 05:11:26 EST From: Marcus Williamson <71333.1665@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: NetWare vs NT Server Apologies for coming late into this discussion. I just joined the list yesterday and have not seen the 'root' message in this thread. Here is my standard reply to those asking for comparison info : For information please see : 'NetWare and Windows NT Server : A Comparative Analysis' For further info please see this document as well as the Novell documents: 'NetWare 4 Reducing Cost of Ownership' 'When you purchase your network, make sure you get ALL the pieces' 'Evaluating NetWare 4.1' 'Novell Strategic Direction' These are available from Novell on (801)429-7000 (800-NETWARE) or via your local Novell office. You might also like to see Novell Application Notes : 'Building and Auditing a Trusted Network Environment with NetWare 4' Apr 94 'An Introduction to Novell's Open Security Architecture' Aug 94 These are available from Novell Research on 303 297 2725 (800-377 4136) Info is also available from Novell via the World Wide Web at http://www.netware.com Networking industry analysts who have recently done comparisons of Novell and MS networking strategies and products are: - Forrester - IDC Research - Gartner - The Burton Group Please contact these companies to obtain information about their reports. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 18:55:04 -0500 From: Joe Thompson To: netw4-l@bgu.edu Subject: Re: Netware & NT -Reply The [NT] domain model really kinda sucks. Try installing a backup domain controller over a router during the inital install. I have yet to pull it off under tcp/ip. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:47:44 +0000 From: seara@btal.com.au To: netw4-l@bgu.edu Subject: Re: Netware & NT -Reply >>>With NT you must setup 'trust relation' between each of the >>>40 servers - 40x40 is 1600 trust relations - that alone is a big >>>job. Spend an afternoon at the Novell website and read up on >>>the comparisons of NT vs Novell. > >You've clearly never run an NT network nor do you have a clue on how >to build a one. This would be the same as saying you need 40 netware >trees! It is a bit pedantic but the comparison was made assuming that each server would be in a seperate domain, which technically if you think of 3.12 each server is a separate domain. As someone else pointed out you can and often do put more than 2 or three servers into a domain. We currently have 4 or more domains (resource domains - Lotus Notes, SQL, Development etc.. ) based upon business lines with an authentication domain where all user accounts are set up. Our NT workstations are also part of the authentication domain (about 600). The authentication domain has the relationships with the other domains. eg Authentication - AUAUTA0001 Notes - AUNOTD0001 Dev - AUDEVD0001 Business - AUBUSD0001 Currently we only have about 15 NT servers (Notes, Citrix, DHCP/DSMN/PDC, BDC, SQL, test/pilot) However if we move our 40 Novell servers to NT we would be moving them into the existing domains or creating a couple of new domains (just my thoughts, I am not too close to our NT project). It was my hope that next year I could try and halve the novell servers but all I can see for the next couple of years is pain and an increase in the number of servers. Hopefully our direction is not 100% decided yet and we can at least get them to evaluate/pilot Netware 4.11. IF the NDS starts to include NT servers, workstations, user accounts etc. we are looking stronger. If not I guess we get more racks for our data centre. The domain model of NT is pretty limited, particularly when every administrative task relies on the PDC. Also for those using NT 4, throw a file (not a shortcut) on your desktop and then check out the size of your profile which is stored on the PDC and downloaded every time you log in. Also try and create a remote share with NT 4's explorer. There are a host of problems NT 4 has based on its immaturity that Netware sorted out several years ago. Based on the mail generated by the original question it is obvious that Novell people (myself included) have more respect for NDS than for NT domains. However opinion needs to be backed up by documentation and one person was kind enough to include some references. I also figure anything Novell say about comparisions Microsoft will just refute or gloss over. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 12:07:16 -0800 From: Darren Rogers Subject: SQL Engines -Reply >Does Netware work properly in a multiprocessor environment? I know >Win NT does To say that NT works properly in a multiprocessor environment is like saying that you can drive a roofing nail with a can of tuna... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 10:53:32 -0600 From: Soren K Lundsgaard Subject: interesting discussion in NT list - NT vs. Netware. I have seen about 6 messages in the NT mailing list (Windows NT Discussion List ) about NT vs. Netware. I'm surprised that the messages have largely been fairly balanced, taking into account the forum that they are occuring in. One person wrote that NT has better SMP support. Another wrote that Netware has better performance on file and print serving, machines being equal. Another wrote that Netware crashes a lot (definitely not my experience). [Floyd: nor ours, nor most NetWare installations!] Someone pointed out that NT does not route. I'm not sure if the mailing list is archived - it might be good to look around LSOFT.COM on the web. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 13:49:48 -0500 From: Debbie Becker Subject: Re: Novell vs. NT >I hope I don't offend anyone with this question, but is Novell 4.11 >better than NT? I ask because I am studing for a CNE 3.1x, and I >am wondering if the world is going NT weather I like it or not. If >NT is the NOS of the future, now would be the best time to switch >from a CNE goal to an NT goal before I invest a lot more time and $$$. I think we'd just better get used to the idea that both NetWare and WinNT are out there and neither one is going away in the near future. I've seen WinNT used with great success and it makes for a terrific apps server. On the other hand, I've seen some horrible implementations of it in enterprise networking situations -- setup/maintenance of multiple domains (which must "trust" one another) can be a real can of worms and makes NDS look *really* good! I think that cross-certification is wise, if you can afford it. If not, get certified (a CNE cert will cost you less currently and still has a *lot* of value in the marketplace) and get some hands on experience with NT. Integration is a hot issue and will only get hotter. Interestingly, Novell is rolling out a class on NetWare and NT Integration to deal with some of the issues involved in running a mixed networking environment. Should be a popular class! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:49:33 -0700 From: Shawn Subject: Re: Novell vs NT >>I hope I don't offend anyone with this question, but is Novell 4.11 >>better than NT? I ask because I am studing for a CNE 3.1x, and I >>am wondering if the world is going NT weather I like it or not. If >>NT is the NOS of the future, now would be the best time to switch >>from a CNE goal to an NT goal before I invest a lot more time and For anyone who's interested, there's a pretty good article on NOSes in the February issue of Byte called "Which OS?". It covers: NetWare, Solaris, NT Server, IBM OS/2 Warp Server, and IBM OS/400. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Byte is going to put the article on their Web Site, so anyone who's interested will have to [buy it]. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 08:27:33 EST From: Gilbert Armour Subject: Re: Novell vs NT Check out both MS and NW web sites. Both have articles comparing the two. Obviously, each site only has articles favorable to its product. Then check web sites of major trade magazies: ComputerWorld, InfoWeek, PC Mag, etc. My $0.02: Both will be around with NetWare maintaining the edge. NT excels as application server but the NT Domain architecture is unwieldly with its trusts. NT GUI is great, but remember it takes many CPU cycles to draw all those pretty pictures. This includes the logon screen. And screen savers pump the CPU to 100% utilization! Play FreeCell on a stand-alone PC then on a server and see the difference. NetWare excels as file and print server and the NDS makes network management and security a breeze. The DOS interface is boring and (mis)typing in commands is no fun. All CPU cycles go into the network and its support. I am seeing our customers mixing the two to take advantage of their individual strengths. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:04:49 -0500 From: Dan Schwartz Subject: Not quite... Joe D. wrote: > If you think that sort of chatter is helping or hindering you >with the job market may I suggest contacting a respectable head hunter. >The original message thrust was vacuous, without a basis in fact. This is >a technical list, not a forum for wild speculation, mud smearing advocacy, >nor for that matter a shopping mall for new jobs. Anyone who trains for >and then is dependent upon servicing one version of one product for their >livelyhood is going to be in difficulty very quickly, no matter what >vendor. The original quote, from an editor at the well-respected Ziff-Davis publishing group, was intended to point out that Novell is in deep trouble. And when a Ziff-Davis editor talks, I listen. I may not always agree, but (usually) they are right on target. If you don't believe me, just pick up a couple of the magazines listed above and peruse their editorials. My own opinion is that Novell will continue to produce a viable product for many years. But, Micro$oft is catching up - fast. Their NT 4.0 workstation has passed the MacOS in terms of quality and ease-of-use (in most cases); and now Gates & company have taken dead aim at Novell (and Netscape). I'm just finishing up a complex EtherTalk LAN in a photography plant [4 employees, 9 Macs + Prosignia 500 server, 3 print server/RIPs (one Mac, one NT, one dedicated (Quintar)), ethernet switch, 4 color printers, 4 laser printers, SCSI port sharing, etc...], and I just finished going through **Novell's own** Web site about their "Reality Checks" as to why (they think) NetWare is better than NT/Server... And guess what? That's right! Using Novell's *own* comparisons, at least for this small LAN, NT/Server 3.51 was a better choice. (Please see footnote.) Now, I'm not putting down NetWare per se: For over 50-100 users, or with a dedicated support person, or where hackers are an issue, NetWare & unix are still king. But the fact that Microsoft has come up with a viable, stable NOS that, for small business' at least, is a good alternative to the complexities of NetWare... And the marketplace has responded, with NetWare's market share falling even faster than Apple's. Rescuing Novell: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In my opinion, what Novell needs to do is produce an inexpensive "stripped" version of NetWare for small LANs: One that is easy to administer for a business owner (as opposed to a CNA)... Sort of a NetWare "Lite." Apple has had this for years with their AppleShare Server; and this would parallel Microsoft's desktop strategy with NT/Workstation and "NT Lite" (a/k/a Windows 95). Don't get me wrong: NetWare is a fine NOS... And it's made a lot of people rich (including my uncle, who was founder & majority owner of GBC Technologies [now GBC/Globelle]... Novell's largest distributor). But it's not for everyone. Micro$oft has recognized this and is eating Novell's lunch in the small LAN arena... And the market share is the proof of the pudding. Cordially, Dan Schwartz, Electrical Engineer. Footnote: Why I chose NT/S 3.51/USSP4 over NetWare 4.1x and AIX: 1) Security and domains were non-issues: Only graphics files and a small FileMaker Pro database folder (<10 MB) are stored on the server; 2) Better dual-fork Mac file support with less waste with the robust NTFS file system and LZW compression: This is important when one is storing files anywhere from 20 kilobytes up to 300 MB in size; 3) Ease of configuring & use: A) Configuring the server (sharing a file/folder/CD) in NT/S is easy (artist-proof!), because the NT/S interface is very similar to the MacOS' Finder File Sharing and AppleShare Server; B) It's easier for the owner (a photographer) to find someone in a pinch who can troubleshoot NT than it is to find a CNA/CNE; 4) Better AppleTalk stack support; 5) Asante NetDoubler software support is in final beta for NT/Server. [NetDoubler provides on-the-fly switching from the AppleTalk stack to the IP stack (via Open Transport) on Macs, and works quite well with Finder File Sharing & AppleShare Server 4.2.2]; 6) Support TODAY for RISC platforms: NT is absolutely *awesome* on a DEC Alpha (AXP processor) (I have a 166 mHz Multia); and the 64 bit AXP version of NT/Server is also in final beta up at Maynard. Novell has had beta's of NetWare for PowerPC (Apple Workgroup Server 9150) and the Alpha; but where are they? 7) Built-in driver-level (software) Level 1 & 5 RAID -- No complex, expensive hardware-based RAID controller needed. This parallels three of the Mac graphics workstations that also have software Level 0 (striping) RAID; 8) NT's Backup.EXE (included) is similar in look & feel to Retrospect -- And the artists know how to use that; 9) NT allows Mac users to store their password for automatic mounting at startup: This is no small item when dealing with (tempermental!) artists who don't like to enter passwords. No kidding on this one: I've run into this time and again at many a graphics house; 10) NT allows password-free guest access: According to a previous answer (right here on this ListSERV!) to the question if NetWare allows this, the reply was only NetWare 3.12: Not NetWare 4.1. [Again, I stress that security is a non-issue, almost an impediment, in this (as well as in many other graphics & photography) facility(s). Rather than continue on, I'll post a web page this week with the detailed LAN layout in color: I need to finish up the drawing for the customer anyway! You'll need ShockWave for FreeHand plug-in (available at: ) or the Adobe Acrobat Reader (available at: to view it. I'll post the URL when it is posted to the Web. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:21:30 +0000 From: Billy O'Rourke Subject: I may have to mix Netware and NT. I was 'volunteered' into going to a NT 4.0 installation & maintenance course by our head of dept who heard somewhere that it would be wise to replace our NW3.11 system with the above. Having researched the 'Netware v NT' thread from the FAQ, I went into the course armed deliberately with the intention of bringing up any issue that Netware was better at. Lo and behold the course organiser, Scott Douglas Briggs, repeatedly plugged Novell as being infinitely better in file and print services, routing, faster, less of a CPU hog, etc, the NT 4.0. It was music to my ears for when I have to report back to my boss. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:27:05 -0800 From: Floyd Maxwell Subject: Re: Not quite... Joe Doupnik wrote: >Dan Schwartz wrote: >> Joe D. wrote: >> >>>If you think that sort of chatter is helping or hindering you >>>with the job market may I suggest contacting a respectable head >>>hunter. The original message thrust was vacuous, without a basis >>>in fact. This is a technical list, not a forum for wild speculation, >>>mud smearing advocacy, nor for that matter a shopping mall for >>>new jobs. Anyone who trains for and then is dependent upon servicing >>>one version of one product for their livelyhood is going to be >>>in difficulty very quickly, no matter what vendor. >> >> Not quite, Joe: The original quote, from an editor at the >>well-respected Ziff-Davis publishing group, including: >----------- > For those who missed the first message from Dan, the quotes were >from a hatchet job article by that totally unbiased outfit Ziff Davis >Publishing. The tenor was "Have you stopped beating your wife?", or "Why >aren't you running the company the way I tell you?" Such very poor >journalism is not appropriate to this list. There is one very simple rule of print publishing... One must "support" the companies that advertise Anyone ever notice how much advertising MS does? Quite simply, they _buy_ their favorable press reviews. A professional in any field should never forget this simple rule. ...and should consider de-subscribing where appropriate -- this has never been easier, thanks to the Internet. One can get all the news/views one needs with minimum ads (i.e. minimum bias, since the two are directly proportional). Someone is always willing to do "...whatever..." for free on the Internet. And there are millions taking advantage of this. Personally I think the MS/bloatware approach is the real "dinosaur" in the J. park. Like the ubiquitous small cars of today, software will have to become lean and economical...ad budgets will have to be slashed and distorted articles should gradually decrease...but become more aggressive and emotional, "macho man uses W95" or "the pretty girl is standing next to a Brand X computer", type...how else to hawk the "much bigger" tail fins of Win95, or the "much newer" smell of the NT vX "upholstery". ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 02:07:11 -0400 From: "John P. Bruni" Subject: NT vs Netware Observations Recently, there has been quite a bit of traffic on this list related to the NT vs Netware debate. Although in the strictest sense, these posting are not appropriate on this, a technical list, they do address issues that many of us are having to deal with. We are at the tail end of converting to an NT infrastructure. While I was not directly involved in this project I can offer some observations on what impact this has had. First of all, we seem to be "consultant" dependent. Taking ownership of any of these systems appears to be a very remote possiblity since no one really knows what they are doing. I realize that this is a management problem but when management says "I want this now!", you really have no choice but to let the consultants do their thing. Secondly, while connecting to a NT server with a WFWG client is "supported" it has proven not to be a viable solution. Performance was awful and the machines constantly blew up. Machines running NT are the client of choice which has meant massive upgrade costs. Thirdly, our MS consultants are now saying that many of the problems we are having are due to NT 3.51 and will go away with NT 4.0. Since we are so deep into this now, we have no choice but to believe them. So, in upgrading, they have found many of the things that worked under 3.51 will not work with 4.0. In addition, the 4.0 interface is going to require additional training for the end-users. Lastly, the administration of NT with it's domains, trusts, trusting etc., seems to be quite labor intensive and not really intuitive. What I don't understand is that years ago, MS had LANMANAGER that did not seem to take hold. If I am not mistaken, isn't NT the same thing? To sum it all up, technical merits of either NOS did not appear to be considered. Those who are in control read the marketing hype in the trade rags and the rest is history. --------- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 21:05:23 -0600 From: mark rogowski Subject: Re: NOVELL Digest - 19 Feb 1997 to 20 Feb 1997 - Special issue >Recently, there has been quite a bit of traffic on this list related >to the NT I must sympathize with you. Microsoft has done an excellent job of grabbing hold of the corporate "big-wigs" by its relentless advertising. So much so that when a CEO reads an ad in a magazine, he/she just can't resist the temptation to drop everything and run out to buy NT. I am seeing this more and more. All I can say is this.... companies are getting caught up in the "upgrade loop", where no matter how bad a Microsoft Networking product is, there will always be a fix for it... at a nominal cost. Eventually, the costs of fixes, plus the pressure from IS, will force them to re-think their stratagy. What goes around, comes around, just have patience. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 15:41:25 -0600 From: "Mike Avery" To: netw4-l@ecnet.net Subject: Re: Why go Intranetware To a businessman, there are two important numbers. One is what something will cost, the other is what it will earn. You actually have 3 options with regards to NetWare 4.10. One is to upgrade to NetWare 4.11, the next is to upgrade to NT 4.0, the last is to do nothing. The 4.10 network is maintainable, and not upgrading will allow you to avoid the upgrade expenses. So, the questions with regards to each client server are: What will it cost to migrate, what will it buy us? A major cost in any conversion is user training. With regards to the platforms, the question is again, why? Sure, '95 and NT 4.0 are sexy hot platforms, but what do they buy the users? And if you move to NT 4.0, management will get a mindset more towards NT. My advice is sit down, look at it from the users point of view, and think about what it gives the users, and in turn what that gives the managers. Once you have a handle on that, you should be able to start making estimates about the costs, and benefits, of migrating. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 18:33:19 CDT From: "Dan Creagan" To: netw4-l@ecnet.net Subject: Re: Why go Intranetware >We have to give a presentation concerning why we should upgrade our 4.10 >server to Intranetware in stead of Windows NT 4.0. You will get many biased answers on this (after all, it IS a netware list!). My experience: NT IIS is much more flexible with databases and CGIs. However, NT will die on you and not let you know it did it. There are still growing pains in all the MS Internet Software. Also, IIS is not a supported product (it's free .. so you get what you pay for). If you have platinum service with MS (or whatever it is) and you call for IIS support, you won't get it. Netware seems robust enough, but database solutions aren't nearly as easy. However, the Perl NLM seems to work pretty well and that opens up the whole CGI market. NetWare Web Server is also is a memory hog. 24 meg on a 4.11 machine just to get started. That's worse than NT. My favorite combination is NT and WebSite Professional. Fantastic. However, you should make up your own mind. I would suggest visiting the CNE Net and Microsoft's News Group for IIS. Both sites have several questions and answers on problems (quite a few problems) associated with the respective servers. You may also like to visit software.ora.com (WebSite's home) ... but remember that software.ora.com is a commercial site and doesn't provide a forum for user feedback (that I know of). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 97 09:44:00 -0800 From: Randy Grein To: Subject: Re: Novell Vs NT Training >Ok I'm ready to dish out a few bucks to get certified for MCSE or CNE. >I am having the worst time trying to figure out which to choose from. >Eventually I'd like to be certified in both but for now I'm looking for >peoples' opinions on which they would choose. Microsoft or Novell??? I think you'll have different answers depending on the audience; as this is a Netware list I think you're unlikely to get a recommendation to go with MS certification. I can tell you this: Right now there are about 10 times as many CNEs as MSCEs, closely matching the market share. Job offers for MS certification are disproportionately high as there is a limited pool of candidates; it's relatively easy to fill a Netware specific position. In addition there's the relative difficulty of passing the certification: MCSE is harder, mostly because they have poor study materials and really bad documentation. It's also much harder to set up a lab for NT; you need a minimum of 3 machines, but only because you're supposed to set them up for dual or even triple boot. If you're going to try for the MS TCP/IP test you'll also need at least one hardware router (A netware server with multiple NICs would do fine), much of the test and difficulty has to do with MS networking limitations around routing. Finally, I'd suggest to consider what you're interested in. Most of the MS people I've talked to and worked with are relatively clueless about actual networking, but very sharp on application and desktop issues. For my money? CNE and a MCP in Win95. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 14:34:50 -0700 From: Shawn Subject: UNIX, Novell, NT >Is there a WWW/FTP or other Internet location, magazine article or other >publication that lists the definitave differences between Novell/NT/UNIX >based servers? Check my web site. Go to the "NetWare vs. NT Articles" on the Novell or Microsoft section. For a comparison of UNIX vs. NT go to http://www.byte.com/art/9605/sec6/sec6.htm There's also a good article in the February 1997 of BYTE, but it's not availble online. It's called "Which OS?" and gives details on various NOS's: Solaris, NT, NetWare, etc.. Bear in mind that the technical comparisions don't mean a thing if you don't have someone to support the platform you go with, eg: UNIX may be the king at a lot of things, but if you don't have a UNIX admin (or want to shell out the big bucks for one), then that's not a practical solution. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:30:36 -0700 From: Tim Madden Subject: Re: Windows95 and Novell >Are there serious incompatibilities between Windows95 and NW4.1? I am >asking the question because some faculty members are suggesting that >after having upgraded three servers to NW4.1, I should switch to WinNT >servers because of incompatibilities between Windows95 and NW 4.1, >specifically that some Windows95 software does not work in the Novell >environment. I need rebuttal information. If you didn't get more specifics, then: 1. The claims can't be substantiated by the faculty and should be taken with a very large grain of salt. (i.e. the faculty don't know what their talking about - surprise) 2. You need to press them to be more specific so you can track down the problems. To answer your question, as I'm sure you've guessed, no. There are no incompatibilities that will prevent Win95 from working with Novell 4.1x. Now, there are some areas where the two don't work in perfect harmony, such as Group Policies, NDS access, SAP advertisement, and others. These are not crippling, but they do introduce some gotchas, yes, buts.... or don't forgets. I, and probably many others on this list, feel your faculty have succumbed to the M$ marketing machine. "If M$ made (stole) it, it must be good". You will find other "incompatibilities between Win95 and WinNT - ever try administering an NT Server from a 95 workstation. Don't bother. --------- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:28:54 -0800 From: Ian Dobson Subject: Re: Windows95 and Novell Wow, The Bill Gates brainwashing thing is worse than I first suspected :) No, I think that they have it the wrong way around, I havn't yet seen an application that can't run in WIN95/NW4.1(workstation app) envronment. But I have seen a few that will not run in the WIN95/NT environment, usually dos apps though like ACCPAC Accounting for one. I guess if they think that your server is too fast and easy to manage and you have way too much uptime, and you play too much golf. Then I could see why they would want NT :) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 18:11:40 PST From: Kevin Miller Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: Novell to NT server conversions >I am leaving the respondent anonymous. But his answer is a follow-up to >the original statement that he was thinking of switching from Netware to >NT. I am the curious one who may be in the same position. Has anyone >any rational comments regarding the comments below? > >------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- > >>I'm curious, because I may be in the same position. What software usage >>do you anticipate that would run on NT but not Netware 4.11? > >I'm not the network administrator, but I'm told that Lotus Notes is one >example, and certain e-mail or "Intranet" applications that use "rich >text" formats that include graphics, etc. We also use Group Systems >conferencing software and their new version will require an NT server. > >We are betting that there will be more and more of this development >aimed at NT. There is no reason why NT Servers and NetWare cannot coexist. If fact, they coexist rather well (thanks to Novell). NT Server is an excellent applications server. File and print? No way. Aside from the huge issue of administration, NT just doesn't have the features to make it a robust file and print server. You only have to spend a little time running both NetWare and NT servers to see this. Here at the Health Services, we use IntraNetware for all file and print services, as well as a NetWare-based Laboratory system. We use Workstation Manager to manage our NT workstations painlessly. We use a singe Windows NT server to run our Web services (Netscape Enterprise and Proxy servers), and our backup software (ArcServe NT). We don't have to worry much about NT domains, since the only members of the domains are servers themselves. Since we currently only have one NT server, it's even easier! Depending on how the Novonyx deal and Novell's Border Services work out, there is a good possibility that we will be moving the Netscape server (web and proxy) to a NetWare box. I can't wait until Novell finishes the NDS port to NT. At that point, we will truly have a cohesive environment. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 13:41:22 -0500 From: Howard Haradon Subject: Re: Choose Novell or NT >Life has turned ugly on me. My university has asked me to choose >between Novell or NT. All these years we have used Novell. But >suddenly with the emergence of Windows'95. Our senior staff, feels >NT is the way to go. In all our academic labs we still use Win 3.1. >But for the fall semester of 1997. We've been asked to move to Win'95. >And that's when they feel NT is better than NetWare. Like the majority on this list I would naturally favor Netware over NT. Where file and print services are concerned it is clearly better. PC Mag's Mar. 26, 1996 benchmark of the two made this evident. It appeared on page 161 of that issue & I have summarized it below. 1. When both NOSs were run over 10Mb ethernet they performed about equally. Here the physical network was the bottle- neck. 2. When tested over Fast Ethernet the performance of Netware began pulling ahead at about 14 client stations. It con- tinued to pull away from NT Server until the number of clients reached 44. At this point the NW 3.12 system showed a throughput of 70 Mbps, NT Server with FAT showed about 37 Mbps, and NT Server with NTFS showed 30 Mbps (? ?). 3. Performance for all systems leveled out as clients were added up to a total of 60. The Netware performance con- tinued to be about double that of NT. 4. This test was just one facet of an overall article on server performance, but the superiority of Novell is further de- picted in the charts on pp. 168-169 which show the various servers' performance under NT Server and under Netware 3.12. Again, when loaded to 44 clients the best perfoming NT Server could do no better than about 35 Mbps while the winning Net- ware server achieved better than 70 Mbps. 5. The magazine contacted Microsoft to get their story NT's per- formance. Ms suggested a number of configuration changes (including the interesting assertion that NT Server does better with only one adapter!), but the PC Mag tech. folks concluded that "NT Server has a way to go before it catches up with NetWare on our benchmark tests". My own thoughts are that Novell has had over 10 years to develop robust multi-tasking software. Microsoft has little experience with successful multi-tasking systems but has shown itself to be a very successful marketing company. --------- Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 17:39:33 EST From: Adam G Morey Subject: Re[2]: Choose Novell or NT >My own thoughts are that Novell has had over 10 years to >develop robust multi-tasking software. Microsoft has little >experience with successful multi-tasking systems but has shown >itself to be a very successful marketing company. Let's see, didn't Microsoft and IBM codevelop OS/2? What about VMS/Unix - didn't Microsoft have a little something to do with that? Hasn't NT Server and been on the market for about five years? I thought NT Server supported asymmetrical and symmetrical multi processing on 64 bit Risc chips, Intel and PowerPCs. I submit that NT workstation will be the most successful multi-tasking system is the history of computing. Netware has faster I/O yes, more experience with Multi-Tasking - I think not. Adam Morey CNE, MCP Network Manager Hughes Aircraft --------- Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 17:26:48 EST From: Adam G Morey Subject: Re: Choose Novell or NT What I say may be a tad unpopular for this list, so I'll begin my comments with a short history. I've had my CNE for four years now and have worked with Novell from the 2.x to present. I'm currently working on my mcse and support 400+ users with 12 netwares and, 4 nt servers, and three linux servers. I will try to avoid trashing either OS by pointing out their bugs, I'll concentrate instead on their features. There are some advantages to windows 95/windows NT server solutions, or what Microsoft calls - "The Microsoft Network". The most important being the client. The Microsoft client for Microsoft networks is good. It doesn't get updated every month and doesn't have any complicated bells and whistles that will make system configuration difficult. You'll have your choice of protocol to use IPX or TCPIP. (NT Server comes with a good DHCP server for easy admin - yes I know that Intranetware does too. Logon/login scripts are much less sophisticated with NT, there are third party script engine you can run at startup, if you go NT I strongly suggest you find one of these - KIXSTART is a good one, otherwise NT relies on batch files for logon scripts.) Printing is much easier in a windows95/windows NT server environment. By creating printers and printer pools on the NT server, the drivers are loaded at the server once - never again does a print driver need to be installed. Every time a user connects to a printer, the driver is pulled from the server. NT server supports LPR printing to UNIX printers and DLC printing to HP jet direct cards. (I realize that Intranetware has distributed print services coming down the pike, maybe it's here in beta) NT Server also has an easy way to change printers from PCL to Postscript with some standard page separator files. Granted pulling the drivers over the LAN makes the entire network less efficient, but it also makes it more manageable. Let' add some more components that make life easier in an Microsoft network environment of your size (80 computers) IIS Web server (I know Intranetware has one, and soon Netscape with have an NLM), DNS server (Intranetware has one too), FTP server (Intranetware can do this too), Remote Access PPP Server with client software for DOS, Windows 3.x, Windows 95, Windows NT and slip support for MAC and Unix for 256 connections (very impressive piece of software), Macintosh support (Included with Intranetware), Netware Gateway Support, Microsoft Mail will be loaded on each computer (nothing like free email), remote performance monitoring, server file compression (Included with Intranetware), GUI server based backup utility and software RAID are available out of the box. The total cost of installing an NT server and Intranetware are basically a wash. You'll need the fastest computer with oodles of RAM to make NT happy. Netware doesn't need quite the processing power or the RAM. Make sure to remember that when you finally make a decision, don't settle for anything less than a pentium pro 200 if you choose NT. I suggest you check out www.bhs.com to see just how much ported unix code and new NT software is available. It's mind boggling. Don't forget that NT runs text based OS/2 and some UNIX code out of the box. It's very easy to port code to NT, there are many documentation project on the web right now dedicated to this effort. I've been administering NT servers along side of netware for about two years now. The NT servers have always had some features that make the Netware servers look bad, they've always had a web server, they've always had distributed printing, they've always had graphic interfaces for config,admin and performance monitoring and they've always had Remote Access PPP dial-in support, NT server performance monitoring and error log system puts netware to shame, they've always had automatic workstation reconnect, and NT also supports per seat or per connection license schemes. Of course NT has always been a little slower, quite a bit more talkative on the wire and requires you to reboot them more often when making config changes. Although the rebooting isn't quite so bad with the auto-reconnect. >The faculty and students want to be able to get to any application >in the fastest possible way, and consistently. Meaning if a student >using a machine decides to delete or move one of the application folders, >the next student who clicks on the shortcut/icon. Should launch some >process that verifies that the folders and files to launch the >application are in the right place, and then launch it. Sort of a rebuild >process. Why not just employ NT on the workstation, format to NTFS and remove the rights to delete any of the office files on the local hard disk? >1. Are you using NT and Netware ? If yes, can one do this better than the > other. NAL may be the ticket, it does support template/image installations, not sure if it has a check feature prior to running an application. Backoffice has a product that does the same kind of installations, not sure if this is what you need either. >2. The speed difference has to be more than 3/5 seconds, or I'll be forced > to join NT. Is that three fifths of a second? If you don't want to use NT, just test the server on a 486/66 with 32 Megs and ram and compare it to Intranetware on the same box. NT will lose every time. However, if you want to be realistic, test both Operating Systems on a state of the art Pentium Pro, you'll be pleased with NTs performance I think. I realize I just wrote a book, but this is a topic I feel will not get a truly unbiased response on this list, so I decided to take the time to and address the issue. In closing I think you have a pretty tough decision to make. I didn't speak about NDS at all, as I don't believe small networks get much benefit from NDS except the centralized admin, NT domains have the same centralized admin features with a single login name for multiple servers. Look for a Microsoft NDS clone with NT server 5.0. NT domain also allow for a very cool peer-to-peer networking in a Microsoft network if you're interested at all in peer-to-peer networking. I can honestly say my NT server (ALR Pentium Pro) has only hung once during the past year, this is comparable to my netware servers (Compaq Proliant). You should make your decision on the availability of fast server hardware (if you can't get a fast server, don't get NT), availability of the features you require (if you need a cheap robust dial-in server you should slant towards NT, if you need NDS you should choose Intranetware), and the amount of time you need have to install/administer these features (most cases, netware involves separate products with different installation and configuration files, NT is centralized around the control panel). I like netware and I like Windows NT server. You can't decide on a Network Operating system by comparing them version to version alone. You need to take a shot and predict where do you think the operating system will be in two months, six months, one year, two years? As sure as Bill Gates is the richest man in America I am confident that Windows NT server will get better and better every couple of months with new free features and the code will get tighter and tighter as every trade rag and security team in the world try to find bugs and Microsoft squirms to fix them. Intranetware on the other hand may follow the exact same path if they can just market themselves better at home and over seas. Just one closing thought, When was the last time you saw a Novell commercial during Prime Time TV. How many IS managers do you think just started to wonder whether they should start to look at NT? I wish Novell had half the marketing savy of Microsoft. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 03:47:27 +0200 From: "Arthur B." Subject: Re: Choose Novell or NT >What I say may be a tad unpopular for this list, so I'll begin my >comments with a short history. I've had my CNE for four years now and >have worked with Novell from the 2.x to present. I'm currently >working on my mcse and support 400+ users with 12 netwares and, 4 nt >servers, and three linux servers. I will try to avoid trashing either >OS by pointing out their bugs, I'll concentrate instead on their >features. I've been playing in the fields now for 10+ years if not longer. I've been involved with simple workgroup PC's up to international mainframe WAN's that are hooked with god-knows-what. I've watched decision makers underestimate just about everything. Thinking that solutions come out of a box. That costs restrict themselves to just hardware and software alone. That a simple course can replace the benifits of know-how and skills build over years. That their own companies unique information and material flows fit easily in standard software. That switching existing platforms is just a matter of export/import. And that admins only cost money... As for certification. Great PR and salary benifits IMO. It does tell something about someone. But skills, know-how, experience, attitude and most important motivation are the things I think make the difference. >There are some advantages to windows 95/windows NT server solutions, >or what Microsoft calls - "The Microsoft Network". The most important >being the client. The Microsoft client for Microsoft networks is >good. It doesn't get updated every month and doesn't have any It forces you to SET BINDERY CONTEXT. I don't call that good at all. Workstations shouldn't decide what is turned on or off at the fileserver level. >complicated bells and whistles that will make system configuration >difficult. You'll have your choice of protocol to use IPX or TCPIP. It has been a long time since I had to alter the standard configuration of Client32. The fact that it is there does gives me more chance to deal with special situations though. >(NT Server comes with a good DHCP server for easy admin - yes I know >that Intranetware does too. Logon/login scripts are much less >sophisticated with NT, there are third party script engine you can run >at startup, if you go NT I strongly suggest you find one of these - >KIXSTART is a good one, otherwise NT relies on batch files for logon >scripts.) Flexible login scripts are very important. Deployed right they can take away a lot of working hours better spend on other things. I take it as a sign that NT doesn't see it as that important. >Printing is much easier in a windows95/windows NT server environment. >By creating printers and printer pools on the NT server, the drivers >are loaded at the server once - never again does a print driver need >to be installed. Every time a user connects to a printer, the driver >is pulled from the server. NT server supports LPR printing to UNIX >printers and DLC printing to HP jet direct cards. (I realize that >Intranetware has distributed print services coming down the pike, >maybe it's here in beta) NT Server also has an easy way to change >printers from PCL to Postscript with some standard page separator >files. > >Granted pulling the drivers over the LAN makes the entire network less >efficient, but it also makes it more manageable. Let' add some more I've yet to encounter a site that has problems with the way Novell handles network printing. I know of many sites that will pay a performance penalty (and probably need to do some investments) if every connect to every printer would result in a complete printdriver server pull. >components that make life easier in an Microsoft network environment >of your size (80 computers) > >IIS Web server (I know Intranetware has one, and soon Netscape with >have an NLM), DNS server (Intranetware has one too), FTP server >(Intranetware can do this too), Remote Access PPP Server with client >software for DOS, Windows 3.x, Windows 95, Windows NT and slip support >for MAC and Unix for 256 connections (very impressive piece of >software), Macintosh support (Included with Intranetware), Netware >Gateway Support, Microsoft Mail will be loaded on each computer >(nothing like free email), remote performance monitoring, server file >compression (Included with Intranetware), GUI server based backup >utility and software RAID are available out of the box. Is software RAID a good thing? Most companies I know of will say: great, how much discount if I don't want it? And, so far common for Microsoft, the free goodies in the box have a bigger brother that cost money to get hold of. But you need them to make life easier. >The total cost of installing an NT server and Intranetware are >basically a wash. You'll need the fastest computer with oodles of RAM What do you see as cost? Things like stability, easy administration, level of control, level of security, cost of ownerschip, access to knowledge databases, access to insight technical data, MTBF, duration of downtime, disaster control, loss of investment in gained know-how and skills and other important things? >to make NT happy. Netware doesn't need quite the processing power or >the RAM. Make sure to remember that when you finally make a decision, >don't settle for anything less than a pentium pro 200 if you choose >NT. Netware uses a DOS screen. It seems to have advantages. >I suggest you check out www.bhs.com to see just how much ported unix >code and new NT software is available. It's mind boggling. Don't Netware can run a lot, a huge lot, of software. >forget that NT runs text based OS/2 and some UNIX code out of the box. > It's very easy to port code to NT, there are many documentation >project on the web right now dedicated to this effort. It is never easy to port code. >I've been administering NT servers along side of netware for about two >years now. The NT servers have always had some features that make the >Netware servers look bad, they've always had a web server, they've >always had distributed printing, they've always had graphic interfaces >for config,admin and performance monitoring and they've always had >Remote Access PPP dial-in support, NT server performance monitoring >and error log system puts netware to shame, they've always had >automatic workstation reconnect, and NT also supports per seat or per >connection license schemes. Of course NT has always been a little >slower, quite a bit more talkative on the wire and requires you to >reboot them more often when making config changes. Although the >rebooting isn't quite so bad with the auto-reconnect. A server should be as fast as possible. If that defies SVGA screens then please do so. I can read logfiles and errorlogs. I don't need a graphical wizard telling me to call support or contact the software vendor after 6 mouseclicks. There's a need for speed. Visual amusement comes much later. A server shouldn't fill up the wire with packets that aren't absolute necessary. If it can do the job without such packets then keep on having them should have great benifits. What are those benifits? Performance/server monitoring is best done by interviewing users, examining logfiles and making use of a sniffer. The on-board performance monitor alone doesn't give you that. Another thing on this GUI on the server. It requires a SVGA card (claims more recources). It requires a SVGA monitor (cost more). If you need a console master then it will cost more. The processor has more data to process. You need a mouse that claims a port and/or IRQ. And for what? To read things you should be able to read from logfiles alone. And those are text. > >The faculty and students want to be able to get to any application > >in the fastest possible way, and consistently. Meaning if a > student > >using a machine decides to delete or move one of the application folders, > >the next student who clicks on the shortcut/icon. Should launch some > >process that verifies that the folders and files to launch the > >application are in the right place, and then launch it. Sort of a rebuild > >process. > >Why not just employ NT on the workstation, format to NTFS and remove >the rights to delete any of the office files on the local hard disk? $$$ > >1. Are you using NT and Netware ? If yes, can one do this better than the > >other. > >NAL may be the ticket, it does support template/image installations, >not sure if it has a check feature prior to running an application. > >Backoffice has a product that does the same kind of installations, not >sure if this is what you need either. > > >2. The speed difference has to be more than 3/5 seconds, or I'll be forced > >to join NT. Normally the quickest one would receive an extra point and the testers would move on to the next test mentioned on the check list. Why this number? As a result (?) from what test? How long is the duration? etc. etc. >Is that three fifths of a second? If you don't want to use NT, just >test the server on a 486/66 with 32 Megs and ram and compare it to >Intranetware on the same box. NT will lose every time. However, if >you want to be realistic, test both Operating Systems on a state of >the art Pentium Pro, you'll be pleased with NTs performance I think. $$$ >I realize I just wrote a book, but this is a topic I feel will not get >a truly unbiased response on this list, so I decided to take the time >to and address the issue. > >In closing I think you have a pretty tough decision to make. I didn't >speak about NDS at all, as I don't believe small networks get much >benefit from NDS except the centralized admin, NT domains have the Wrong. >same centralized admin features with a single login name for multiple Thanks to Novell who released their NDS code to the public. >servers. Look for a Microsoft NDS clone with NT server 5.0. NT It will be a while before NT5 is released. >domain also allow for a very cool peer-to-peer networking in a >Microsoft network if you're interested at all in peer-to-peer >networking. This is nice for smaller office that usually don't have much money to spend. In fact you could drop the (any) fileserver all together and move on using Win311 or Win95 to set up the peer to peer network. > >I can honestly say my NT server (ALR Pentium Pro) has only hung once >during the past year, this is comparable to my netware servers (Compaq >Proliant). > >You should make your decision on the availability of fast server >hardware (if you can't get a fast server, don't get NT), availability Know that there is a list of recommended hardware from Microsoft. And not without reason. >of the features you require (if you need a cheap robust dial-in server You can allways hook up PCAnyWhere to a workstation. >you should slant towards NT, if you need NDS you should choose >Intranetware), and the amount of time you need have to >install/administer these features (most cases, netware involves >separate products with different installation and configuration files, >NT is centralized around the control panel). Netware, like NT, often works with third party software. All third party software has its own views on how installing, configuration and maintaining should be done. >I like netware and I like Windows NT server. You can't decide on a >Network Operating system by comparing them version to version alone. >You need to take a shot and predict where do you think the operating >system will be in two months, six months, one year, two years? As The question you need to ask yourself is what is needed to get the job done for a total price that is less then the benifits it will give you. You wouldn't install a mainframe because it's to pricy and no-one would know how to work with the thing nor the software for the first couple of months. The company would be broke before you know it. >sure as Bill Gates is the richest man in America I am confident that >Windows NT server will get better and better every couple of months >with new free features and the code will get tighter and tighter as >every trade rag and security team in the world try to find bugs and >Microsoft squirms to fix them. Intranetware on the other hand may Is this an invitation to become a beta test site? >follow the exact same path if they can just market themselves better >at home and over seas. Netware has been in this market for years now. It has outstanding security and cost effective administration. It does require knowledge beyond the wisdom wizards can give you. But then most people don't fix their car themselves. They leave that to someone who knows what he's dealing with. Because in the long run that would cost less. >Just one closing thought, > >When was the last time you saw a Novell commercial during Prime Time >TV. How many IS managers do you think just started to wonder whether >they should start to look at NT? A lot of them. How many of them will make cost efficient decisions? > >I wish Novell had half the marketing savy of Microsoft. Novell lacks marketing skills. Microsoft lacks other skills. ------------------------------ From ???@??? Mon May 26 12:55:31 1997 Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 03:59:28 +0200 From: "Arthur B." Subject: Re: Re[2]: Choose Novell or NT >>My own thoughts are that Novell has had over 10 years to >>develop robust multi-tasking software. Microsoft has little >>experience with successful multi-tasking systems but has shown >>itself to be a very successful marketing company. > >Let's see, didn't Microsoft and IBM codevelop OS/2? What about OS/2 is a stable, well performing and very configurable OS. If MicroSoft had a hand in this then why isn't Windows and NT also? >VMS/Unix - didn't Microsoft have a little something to do with that? Pardon? Any specifics on this? >Hasn't NT Server and been on the market for about five years? I Five years allready? It could be interesting to investigate what Microsoft achieved with their NT product in those five years and what Novell achieved with Netware. >thought NT Server supported asymmetrical and symmetrical multi >processing on 64 bit Risc chips, Intel and PowerPCs. I would like to return to the times where version 2 of a software product ment that you could do more faster with *less* hardware or at least with the hardware you allready had. Back then this was mostly stimulated by the price of the hardware. Nowedays we find it normal that when the software doesn't perform as required we simply add or replace hardware. Allready knowing that the next version number will require even more. The only surprise will be how much hardware. But it doesn't stop there. To really make use of all the new goodies you need to upgrade workstations and software packages too. All in all a lot of money. And someone has to do all that, causing downtime (installing) along the way. Normally 'someone' is payed too. And then that 'someone' needs to master the new environment along with a lot of users. Missing out on all the goodies can save a lot of money. More then most realize. >I submit that NT workstation will be the most successful multi-tasking >system is the history of computing. Deploying a product like NT workstation in an average working environment would cost a lot of money (see above). And what do you get in return? The insurance that the next hype might be NetStations or Web-PC's? Bye bye investment, welcome new investments. Following hypes shouldn't be something companies get involved with. Unless when it saves money and/or generates money and/or gives a huge PR advantage and/or is part of their primary goal. >Netware has faster I/O yes, more experience with Multi-Tasking - I >think not. I wouldn't know about experience. I do have an opinion on who was the first to come up with a stable multi-tasking environment and still has up to this day. All in all I've to admit that Microsoft has the biggest marketing machine in the world right now and that a lot of companies wish to ride along with it (after all those company aren't there to save your money). Microsoft products do improve over time. Novell is out there also. Their latest products have NDS. It has the kind of goodies that can save more money than it would cost to bring in. Certainly if you already have Netware. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 08:18:27 PST From: Harry Campbell Subject: Re[4]: Choose Novell or NT >>VMS/Unix - didn't Microsoft have a little something to do with that? >Pardon? Any specifics on this? Perhaps there is a little confusion here from the original poster. Microsoft had a hand in developing SCO XENIX - sort of like UNIX in a way, I guess... The guy that Microsoft brought in to be chief architect/driving force for NT was working for Digital and in some way on VMS. (Sorry - don't remember all the details...) Dave Cutler ran the VMS development at Digital. Gordan Leitwin was the Chief OS/2 Architect for Microsoft preceding the breakup with IBM over the direction the development would pursue. Cutler was brought in to continue Micorosoft's pursuit of Windows NT from its early incarnation as 0 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:27:49 -0400 From: Maryann Sheehan Subject: Re: NetWare 4.11 vs NT 4.0 >I've seen comparisions between NT 4.0 vs NetWare 3.xx and NetWare 4.1 >vs NT 3.51, but not NetWare 4.1x vs NT 4.0. We are planning to run >ServerBench on two identical hardware servers with NT 4.0 and NW 4.11. >Does anyone know where I can find NW 4.11 vs NT 4.0 comparisions? >Everything I've heard says NetWare will kick NT's butt in file and print. >Is this correct or am I going to get a rude awakening? I have also been looking for NT4.0 vs NetWare 4.11 comparisons. Trying to find an unbiosed, updated comparison that will truthfully tell me what OS is better for what service has been next to impossible. I admit I am a Novell fan, but I seriously need to do what's best for our Corporation. Below are two links that I've found. One is, again, NT3.51 vs NetWare 4.1 but looks good. If I find others, I will let you know. http://tech.ties.k12.mn.us/news/nos/ http://www.wcmh.com/lantimes/usetech/compare/pcNWvsNT.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 16:46:31 +1000 From: "MICHAEL D. SETZER II" Subject: Check out the Review on Micro$oft Zero Administration Kit I just saw this at the Lantimes site. The Ratings for the Zero Administration Kit by Micro$oft. Ease of setup POOR Extensibility POOR Usefulness POOR Value GOOD Price: FREE (Guess that is why it is a Good Value) The page is at: http://www.wcmh.com/lantimes/97/97oct/710a022a.html It is only an intial release, but it might get people to take a second look at just jumping onto the M$ bandwagon. ------------------------------