Re: NT's SFM 'services'

Dan Schwartz(expresso[at]snip.net)
Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:00:04 -0500

        Dear Thomas:

        Actually, installing NT on an Alpha is easier than on an x86: From the ARC
menu, select "Supplementary Menu." Then, select "Install Windows NT from a
CD/ROM" and sit back. No 3-floppy deal like on in inHell box...

        PS: I have 4 Multia servers and an AlphaStation 4/200. In fact, my first
NT installation was NT/S 3.51 on a Multia!

        [More below]

At 08:59 PM 12/15/98 -0500, Thomas Kase wrote:
>
>> Subject: Re: WinMac Digest #160 - 12/07/98
>> From: Dan Schwartz <expresso@snip.net>
>> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 20:22:06 -0500
>>
>> One of the strongest points of NT's Services for Macintosh -- And NT in
>> general -- is NTFS. We all know what a joke HFS is on large volumes; and
>> what a disaster HFS+ is (at least until Norton Utilities 4.0 came out a few
>> weeks ago). NTFS is much more robust, and self-healing to a point. And if a
>> file is corrupted, the OS will lock it out.
>
>
>Dan,
>
>First of all let's stop carping about old stuff like plain HFS, shall we?
>Since this is the WINDOWS - MacOS list, wanna talk FAT? Didn't think
>so ;-)
>
>NTFS is definitely a nice technology - I like the way you can slice
>multiple drives into one volume for example. The group/user access
>possibilities are other areas where NTFS shines.

        Actually, you can span an HFS volume with FWB's RAID Toolkit... But it's a
3rd party product you need to buy.

>
>In some areas NTFS is way ahead of NT itself. Its Alternative Data Streams
>that keep track of Mac files' resource fork is one example of a piece of
>technology that NT doesn't utilize itself.

        In fact, according to NTFS guru Paul Bunn <mailto:paul@UltraBac.com>
MacFile is the only thing that uses a second data stream. I agree, it's
kind of a shame, too.

>
>Other areas where NT has yet to catch up with itself is NT's Domain Model
>where any number of users above, say 1000, the system becomes unmanageable.
>A minor comment, and supposedly NT5 will fix that, some day.

        No kidding... And watch what happens when you promote a BDC to a PDC...

>
>> SFM is not perfect; but for file and print services it is quite good.
>
>You are welcome to come and take a look at our HP LaserJet being 'served'
>by an NT4 box - quite erratic service indeed - completely inconsistent
>across our NT boxes. The only ones that are happy are the Macs - because
>they print directly over the printer's AppleTalk - skipping NT, thankfully.
>
        Check your logon script.

        Also "nail down" the IP address on the LJ printers. Usually, I put them at
the top of the address range subnet, and then the DHCP server will find
them and lock those addresses out.

>> the other hand, opening up an NT server to the outside world can indeed
>> cause problems; and M$ Exchange 5.5 absolutely sucks.
>
>Absolutely and NT is only certified as secure if used as a stand-alone...
>Somehow the idea of a server loses its appeal as a stand-alone ;-)

        True; and as I recommended, NetWare is a lot better. Or even better yet,
OpenVMS, and its military-grade cousin, S-VMS.

>
>> But, we were specifically discussing NT/Server's Services for Macintosh vs
>> ASIP 6.x -- Let's compare apples to apples and not digress into other uses
>> of the NOS. If I wanted to discuss security issues to the outside world,
>> then I would recommend Novell's IntraNetWare and/or Border Patrol instead.
>> Unfortunately, Novell's ATALK.NLM and AFP.NLM don't provide good file and
>> print performance for Macs.
>
>Aren't we avoiding the issue? Fact is that SFM on NT is old, clunky and
buggy
>as well as offering far lower throughput than ASIP does.

        On a 100Base-TX full-duplex ethernet I average about 1.6 megabytes per
second sustained transfer rate between an H-P NetServer LD (single PPro)
server and 8500/180

>
>> [One of the reasons why NT, in general, is so robust is that it came from
>> Dave Cutler -- The same developer as DIGITAL's OpenVMS.]
>
>Dave Cutler didn't touch NT4 - he built the previous versions. Which is why
>NT4 stinks. NTFS isn't even Cutler's work - that was done by a buddy of his.
>Cutler has only been involved to a small degree in NT5.
>
>> Also, digressing just a bit, about the hardware these NOS' run on...
>
>And I guess all of us need all these different platforms? Also, how about
>all the conflicts from running on so much? Ever tried installing NT5 (albeit
>beta)? How many times did you have to try? On how many machines? Tried
>on a laptop?

        Sorry, I haven't run Win 2000 (NT5) yet... I'm up to my elbows with NT4 :)

>
>> One of the biggest problems with ASIP 6.x is that it only runs on a Mac...
>> It will not run on an RS/6000. And let's face it, the Mac tower case,
>> albeit improved from the Quadra 800 variety, still stinks.
>
>You can buy third party rack stuff I you want - plenty out there.
>
>> Compare the quality of the hardware on an Apple 8600 to a Compaq ProLiant
>> or IBM PC Server 325 -- There is no comparison -- The Apple product is a
>> toy. Where are the hot-swap trays? Where are the bountiful PCI slots? Where
>> is the rugged power supply? Where is the compatibility with hardware RAID
>> cards?
>
>Macs don't need that many PCI slots to start out with - load a Wintel box
>with all the various cards it needs just to boot and what are you left with?
>About the same as on a Mac!

        Not true: Just look at an IBM PC Server 325. I have one under my desk
keeping my feet warm!

>
>All the extra goodies are already available for the Mac - for the few % of
>the market that wants them, there is plenty available.

        Hardware RAID cards?!

>
>> And if you don't like the rePentium (x86) platform, you also have the
>> choice of running NT on a 600 mHz DEC Alpha. And AlphaNT is even more
>> stable than x86/NT.
>
>And NT is SOOOO easy to install on Alpha. You're getting beyond the point
>of being ridiculous here Dan. Seriously, most people have problems with
>regular NT installations.

        See above; also NT on an Alpha is a lot easier to work with than on an x86
box. [The actual reason is that there are far fewer HAL's (Hardware
Abstraction Layers) for the OS to deal with.

>
>Also, if Mac runs on too few machines for you - why jump into the Alpha box?

        1) Better Speed;
        2) Better Stability;
        3) Better hardware support;
        4) Many Alpha clone vendors (~30). Please see:
                <http://www.AlphaNT.com> and click on the "Hardware Vendors" link in the
left frame.

>
>No Dan, as usual it comes down to you grinding the Apple ax.

        Please don't confuse my liking NT with my general dislike of the x86
platform: They are two separate issues. My personal favorite platform is
NT4 on an Alpha.

        Also, I'm fed up with Apple's poor hardware quality and "Steveifying"
their support. Just go to Ric Ford's Macintouch site at:
 <http://www.macintouch.com/applesupport.html> and read about it.

>
>However, I fully agree that NTFS is a beautiful thing - too bad it has to sit
>inside such a crummy OS.
>
>Thomas Kase
>
> accessio.com inc., 33 south main street, #7, south norwalk, ct 06854
> phone: 203.866.4454 fax: 203.866.4546
> email: thomas@accessio.com
>
>\\\\ the bridge to Japan (TM) \\\\

        Yours truly,
        Daniel L. Schwartz,
        Electrical Engineer.

        Dan's Macintosh Consulting
        Suite 1306
        1840 Frontage Road
        Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-2205

        609-795-8965

 -----------------------------------------------------------------

        <mailto:expresso@snip.net, Dan@Hemnet.com> (Internet)
        <mailto:expresso@snip.net; Dan@Hemnet.com> (Outlook)

                Webmaster for <http://www.faulknerstudios.com>

        **Your Corel Solution Partner**

                **Your UltraBac Solution Source**

 -----------------------------------------------------------------

--=----------next-message-----------=

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Sun Dec 20 1998 - 15:58:59 PST