At 9:50 PM -0500 10/1/99, V. Wysong wrote:
>We're getting advice from vendors who say to ignore Appleshare IP 6.2
>because Windows NT or Novel will serve
>the Mac needs without complicating the network with a second type of
>network. They're offering to admin & support a Win or Novel
>network remotely (of course for a per incident service fee).
>
>Opinions?
>
Yeah, don't touch Novell with a 100 foot pole! It's
outdated, it's ugly and there's really no reason is 1999/2000 to be
using it!!
As far as NT vs. AShare/IP, it's a tradeoff since NT can
share Mac and AShare/IP can share Wintel - HOWEVER, since NT 4.x only
does AppleTalk sharing while AShare/IP does IP-based sharing, that's
a BIG win for your Mac users in terms of sharing performance.
Len makes some good points; but with ASIP 6.2 you're stuck with only one
hardware vendor... And unfortunately Apple's wares are only desktop quality
- Not server quality. Plus, they're not overly expandable with only two
free PCI slots after you drop in a SCSI controller.
Fortunately, your 220 node school LAN does not need 24/7 reliability, so
you may very well "get away" with a converted desktop machine acting as a
server. BUT, desktop machines are designed not for 24/365 dependability,
maintainability; and I/O throughput. Instead, they (desktop boxes) are
designed for fast 3D display, high Spec95FP numbers, and low cost. [If you
don't believe me, then why are there no 2 or 4-way Athlon systems?!]
`As for the Qube boxes and rack-mount "skinnies," yes, they look cool.
But, IMHO, the hardware is not battle-tested for 24/7 reliability and
cooling. I looked closely at their products at MacWorld in late July; and I
think they tried to squeeze a bit too much into too small a package - Both
the cube as well as the 1U rackmount modules. Maybe I'm wrong, but every
time I've seen packaging take precedence over good (electronic & cooling)
design, reliability takes a hit.
At 12:41 AM -0400 10/4/99, Daniel L. Schwartz wrote:
> `As for the Qube boxes and rack-mount "skinnies," yes, they look cool.
>But, IMHO, the hardware is not battle-tested for 24/7 reliability and
>cooling.
I have to disagree with you here, Dan. There are a LOT of=20
these out in the field, especially at ISP's around the country (that=20
was there target market at the outset) and they are meeting &=20
exceeding the 24/7 needs.
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 10:58:43 -0400
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
I have to weigh in on the sole source point. It's a non-issue. If you run
NT, you have a sole-source for your OS. If you use Solaris, same deal. If
you have an AS/400, both hardware and software come from IBM. Please. Dan
does have some valid points about the server hardware from Apple, although
the machines the have on the web site, (although not yet available), have
dual power supplies, so that's a good thing. (as with all my servers, the
P/S go first.)
As far as the slot issue goes, for a file server, again, if you really need
more than 2 dual - channel SCSI cards and a gigabit or ATM card, then I
*seriously* recommend you leave both the NT and Mac toys alone, and get
yourself a fat Sun Enterprise server or a nice 12 - processor AS/400,
because you are needing BIG iron.
As far as NetWare goes, I wouldn't recommend migrating TO it, but if you
have a nice stable NetWare 5 setup, and it's running well, there is NO need
to just throw it away. Prosoft makes a nice client, and NetWare is loads
better than NT.
Breathe deeply, plan, stay calm, plan, buy the tools YOU need, plan, and
party on.
john
> Len makes some good points; but with ASIP 6.2 you're stuck with only one
> hardware vendor... And unfortunately Apple's wares are only desktop quality
> - Not server quality. Plus, they're not overly expandable with only two
> free PCI slots after you drop in a SCSI controller.
>
> Two issues that are often overlooked are scalability and (especially)
> reliability. Apple took a stab at the reliability with their nice Network
> Server 500 and 700 machines; but with only about 100 machines per month
> being sold...
>
> Fortunately, your 220 node school LAN does not need 24/7 reliability, so
> you may very well "get away" with a converted desktop machine acting as a
> server. BUT, desktop machines are designed not for 24/365 dependability,
> maintainability; and I/O throughput. Instead, they (desktop boxes) are
> designed for fast 3D display, high Spec95FP numbers, and low cost. [If you
> don't believe me, then why are there no 2 or 4-way Athlon systems?!]
>
> I certainly DO agree with my pal Len on steering clear of NetWare: It's
> butt-ugly and uses wacky HAM disk drivers.
>
> `As for the Qube boxes and rack-mount "skinnies," yes, they look cool.
> But, IMHO, the hardware is not battle-tested for 24/7 reliability and
> cooling. I looked closely at their products at MacWorld in late July; and I
> think they tried to squeeze a bit too much into too small a package - Both
> the cube as well as the 1U rackmount modules. Maybe I'm wrong, but every
> time I've seen packaging take precedence over good (electronic & cooling)
> design, reliability takes a hit.
>
> Cheers!
> Dan
>
>
> At 10:46 PM 10/3/99 -0400, Len wrote:
>> At 9:50 PM -0500 10/1/99, V. Wysong wrote:
>>> We're getting advice from vendors who say to ignore Appleshare IP 6.2
>>> because Windows NT or Novel will serve
>>> the Mac needs without complicating the network with a second type of
>>> network. They're offering to admin & support a Win or Novel
>>> network remotely (of course for a per incident service fee).
>>>
>>> Opinions?
>>>
>> Yeah, don't touch Novell with a 100 foot pole! It's
>> outdated, it's ugly and there's really no reason is 1999/2000 to be
>> using it!!
>>
>> As far as NT vs. AShare/IP, it's a tradeoff since NT can
>> share Mac and AShare/IP can share Wintel - HOWEVER, since NT 4.x only
>> does AppleTalk sharing while AShare/IP does IP-based sharing, that's
>> a BIG win for your Mac users in terms of sharing performance.
>>
>>
>> Leonard
>
>
> * Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
>
Subject: Appleshare IP versus...
From: hharken <hank.harken@asu.edu>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 09:26:02 -0700
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>We're getting advice from vendors who say to ignore Appleshare IP 6.2
>because Windows NT or Novel will serve
>the Mac needs without complicating the network with a second type of
>network. They're offering to admin & support a Win or Novel
>network remotely (of course for a per incident service fee).
Sounds like they know where their future income can come from :-)
I don't use the current version of Appleshare but in previous
versions the only time I can to do any adminstrative work on
the server was to add or delete users. And we had DOS/Windows
users on the server too.
- Hank
Subject: Re: Larger Network
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 12:19:10 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I would like to comment on several issues, inline:
At 10:58 AM 10/4/99 -0400, my colleague John Welch wrote:
>I have to weigh in on the sole source point. It's a non-issue. If you run
>NT, you have a sole-source for your OS.
Quite true. And/But as what just happened with Compaq dropping AlphaNT
support after build 2074 (W2kb3RC1), you CAN rest somewhat assured that
Micros~1 will be sticking with their flagship NOS.
>If you use Solaris, same deal. If
>you have an AS/400, both hardware and software come from IBM. Please. Dan
>does have some valid points about the server hardware from Apple, although
>the machines the have on the web site, (although not yet available), have
>dual power supplies, so that's a good thing. (as with all my servers, the
>P/S go first.)
Here, I gently disagree with you; and this goes *directly* to my point:
Usually, I've found disk drives to go first, and *not* (well-designed)
server power supplies. And this reveals a fatal flaw for PCI PowerPC Macs:
No PCI option card RAID controllers. And even *if* there were hardware PCI
RAID controllers, then that would use up one valuable slot.
>As far as the slot issue goes, for a file server, again, if you really need
>more than 2 dual - channel SCSI cards and a gigabit or ATM card, then I
>*seriously* recommend you leave both the NT and Mac toys alone, and get
>yourself a fat Sun Enterprise server or a nice 12 - processor AS/400,
>because you are needing BIG iron.
Here again, I gently disagree with you: For small LAN's for graphics,
prepress, & multimedia - Ethernet bandwidth and lots of RAID-protected
storage are the norm, and not so much CPU horsepower.
>As far as NetWare goes, I wouldn't recommend migrating TO it, but if you
>have a nice stable NetWare 5 setup, and it's running well, there is NO need
>to just throw it away. Prosoft makes a nice client, and NetWare is loads
>better than NT.
I don't like to load additional components (such as the MacIPX stack) on a
Mac because it's just one more thing to go wrong and cause crashes. Been
there, done her...
QUESTION (for anyone): Is there a NetWare 5 add-on that provides AFP/IP
support, like MacServer IP and ExtremeZ-IP provides to NT4? If indeed there
is, then this *might* cause me to dislike NetWare a little less...
>Breathe deeply, plan, stay calm, plan, buy the tools YOU need, plan, and
>party on.
>
>john
>
>> Len makes some good points; but with ASIP 6.2 you're stuck with only one
>> hardware vendor... And unfortunately Apple's wares are only desktop quality
>> - Not server quality. Plus, they're not overly expandable with only two
>> free PCI slots after you drop in a SCSI controller.
>>
>> Two issues that are often overlooked are scalability and (especially)
>> reliability. Apple took a stab at the reliability with their nice Network
>> Server 500 and 700 machines; but with only about 100 machines per month
>> being sold...
>>
>> Fortunately, your 220 node school LAN does not need 24/7 reliability, so
>> you may very well "get away" with a converted desktop machine acting as a
>> server. BUT, desktop machines are designed not for 24/365 dependability,
>> maintainability; and I/O throughput. Instead, they (desktop boxes) are
>> designed for fast 3D display, high Spec95FP numbers, and low cost. [If you
>> don't believe me, then why are there no 2 or 4-way Athlon systems?!]
>>
>> I certainly DO agree with my pal Len on steering clear of NetWare: It's
>> butt-ugly and uses wacky HAM disk drivers.
[balance cut]
Yours truly,
Daniel L. Schwartz,
Electrical Engineer.
Dan's MacOS Consulting
239 Great Road
Maple Shade, NJ 08052-3044
Voice: 856-642-7666 <-- Note new area code (was 609)
Fax: 413-451-4391
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THERE ARE NO ATTACHMENTS TO THIS MESSAGE, SO IF ONE
APPEARS WITH IT, DO NOT OPEN OR DOWNLOAD IT!
<mailto:expresso@snip.net>
ALTERNATE: <mailto:expresso@workmail.com>
Webmaster for <http://www.Faulknerstudios.com>,
<http://www.BrakeAndGo.com>
**Your UltraBac Solution Source**
-> NEW! Sign up for the Mac-NT Mailing list at:
<http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/Mac-NT>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Re: Larger Network
From: "Welch, John C." <jwelch@aer.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 12:41:49 -0400
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
my comments inline, stuff cut, yadda....
> Here, I gently disagree with you; and this goes *directly* to my point:
> Usually, I've found disk drives to go first, and *not* (well-designed)
> server power supplies. And this reveals a fatal flaw for PCI PowerPC Macs:
> No PCI option card RAID controllers. And even *if* there were hardware PCI
> RAID controllers, then that would use up one valuable slot.
Umm...there ARE PCI hardware RAID controllers...they aren't advertised as
nicely as they might be, but they exist. Again... HOW many slots do you
need? If you really need more, then get a breakout box, which loses nothing
in speed, and can gain you in reliability, because it has it's own P/S. So
if the CPU goes, you can hook the breakout box to another Mac, and be up
even faster. (although gentle disagreement is a rather nice change of pace
online. Wow...civil discourse...what next...manners? lol)
>> As far as the slot issue goes, for a file server, again, if you really need
>> more than 2 dual - channel SCSI cards and a gigabit or ATM card, then I
>> *seriously* recommend you leave both the NT and Mac toys alone, and get
>> yourself a fat Sun Enterprise server or a nice 12 - processor AS/400,
>> because you are needing BIG iron.
>
> Here again, I gently disagree with you: For small LAN's for graphics,
> prepress, & multimedia - Ethernet bandwidth and lots of RAID-protected
> storage are the norm, and not so much CPU horsepower.
Maybe, but by the time you get a Compaq or an IBM server with big RAID, BIG
I/O, etc, you are in the AS/400 area pricewise...and for reliability, an
AS/400 trounces all NT/Unix/Mac competitors. Also, a 400 is *very* easy to
set up, and is TRULY certified at C2 and better security, even ON a
network...unlike NT's PR sleight of hand.
>
>
>> As far as NetWare goes, I wouldn't recommend migrating TO it, but if you
>> have a nice stable NetWare 5 setup, and it's running well, there is NO need
>> to just throw it away. Prosoft makes a nice client, and NetWare is loads
>> better than NT.
>
> I don't like to load additional components (such as the MacIPX stack) on a
> Mac because it's just one more thing to go wrong and cause crashes. Been
> there, done her...
Agreed, but I have heard many nice things about the Prosoft client, and
NetWare's directory services are a lot more proven than the unreleased AD
>
> QUESTION (for anyone): Is there a NetWare 5 add-on that provides AFP/IP
> support, like MacServer IP and ExtremeZ-IP provides to NT4? If indeed there
> is, then this *might* cause me to dislike NetWare a little less...
>
That would be cool
>
>> Breathe deeply, plan, stay calm, plan, buy the tools YOU need, plan, and
>> party on.
>>
>> john
>>
older stuff cut
>
> Yours truly,
> Daniel L. Schwartz,
> Electrical Engineer.
>
> Dan's MacOS Consulting
> 239 Great Road
> Maple Shade, NJ 08052-3044
>
> Voice: 856-642-7666 <-- Note new area code (was 609)
> Fax: 413-451-4391
>
Subject: Re: Re: Larger Network
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 13:03:22 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Inline, again:
At 12:41 PM 10/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
>my comments inline, stuff cut, yadda....
>
>
>> Here, I gently disagree with you; and this goes *directly* to my point:
>> Usually, I've found disk drives to go first, and *not* (well-designed)
>> server power supplies. And this reveals a fatal flaw for PCI PowerPC Macs:
>> No PCI option card RAID controllers. And even *if* there were hardware PCI
>> RAID controllers, then that would use up one valuable slot.
>
>Umm...there ARE PCI hardware RAID controllers...they aren't advertised as
>nicely as they might be, but they exist.
Oh really? Who makes them - I'm serious about this...
>Again... HOW many slots do you
>need? If you really need more, then get a breakout box, which loses nothing
>in speed, and can gain you in reliability, because it has it's own P/S.
Not quite: The breakout boxes only support 33 mHz PCI bus speed. I asked
at MacWorld on this one! :)
>So if the CPU goes, you can hook the breakout box to another Mac, and be up
>even faster. (although gentle disagreement is a rather nice change of pace
>online. Wow...civil discourse...what next...manners? lol)
>
>>> As far as the slot issue goes, for a file server, again, if you really
need
>>> more than 2 dual - channel SCSI cards and a gigabit or ATM card, then I
>>> *seriously* recommend you leave both the NT and Mac toys alone, and get
>>> yourself a fat Sun Enterprise server or a nice 12 - processor AS/400,
>>> because you are needing BIG iron.
>>
>> Here again, I gently disagree with you: For small LAN's for graphics,
>> prepress, & multimedia - Ethernet bandwidth and lots of RAID-protected
>> storage are the norm, and not so much CPU horsepower.
>
>Maybe, but by the time you get a Compaq or an IBM server with big RAID, BIG
>I/O, etc, you are in the AS/400 area pricewise...and for reliability, an
>AS/400 trounces all NT/Unix/Mac competitors. Also, a 400 is *very* easy to
>set up, and is TRULY certified at C2 and better security, even ON a
>network...unlike NT's PR sleight of hand.
Agreed 100% on the security issue, but not on the cost. Plus, when you buy
an AS/400 you're (pretty much) stuck with IBM stuff inside, with expensive
upgrade options... At least in the x86 server space you have competition
for "commodity" servers such as ProLiants, NetServers, Netfinity's, yada
yada yada... This helps hold down the (hardware) price.
Also, the issue of maintenance comes up: x86 boxes are a LOT easier to
work on than an AS/400: You so much as sneeze at an AS/400 and IBM goes
anal with the warranty and support charges.
>>> As far as NetWare goes, I wouldn't recommend migrating TO it, but if you
>>> have a nice stable NetWare 5 setup, and it's running well, there is NO
need
>>> to just throw it away. Prosoft makes a nice client, and NetWare is loads
>>> better than NT.
>>
>> I don't like to load additional components (such as the MacIPX stack) on a
>> Mac because it's just one more thing to go wrong and cause crashes. Been
>> there, done her...
>
>Agreed, but I have heard many nice things about the Prosoft client, and
>NetWare's directory services are a lot more proven than the unreleased AD
Agreed about NDS vs AD; but in a small LAN neither is used. For this user
needing hardware for a 220 client (~250 node) LAN either AD or NDS should
work... But I sure as hell wouldn't want to deploy AD on anything larger
than a class C subnet!
As for ProSoft's IPX client, it's just one more thing to support. As I
said in the MacWorld seminar 9 weeks ago, you can make the server "bend" to
support the Macs; or you can make the Macs "bend" to accommodate the
server. With NetWare 5 you are pretty much now stuck with the latter...
>> QUESTION (for anyone): Is there a NetWare 5 add-on that provides AFP/IP
>> support, like MacServer IP and ExtremeZ-IP provides to NT4? If indeed there
>> is, then this *might* cause me to dislike NetWare a little less...
>>
>That would be cool
Yeah, I'm waiting too.
Cheers!
Dan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
While you're spamming me, don't forget to include these guys:
Chairman Reed Hundt: rhundt@fcc.gov Comm. James Quello: jquello@fcc.gov
Comm. Susan Ness: sness@fcc.gov Comm. Rachelle Chong: rchong@fcc.gov
US Postal Service: customer@email.usps.gov Fraud Watch: fraudinfo@psinet.com
Federal Trade Commission: consumerline@ftc.gov
Oh, and while you're at it, pound some sand too!
admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost $LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost
$USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost root@mailloop.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Larger Network Novell clinet for Macs)
From: "Jeff Johnson" <jjohnson@wi.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 13:00:10 -0500
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
All -
I can't comment on most of what this thread has gone into but I can tell you
the latest Novell Mac client made by ProSoft Engineering performs quite well
in our Novell 4.11 environment (an upgrade to 5 is coming soon) and a big
step forward from what Mac users had to deal with in previous versions.
Jeff Johnson
Technology Coordinator
Greendale School District
Greendale WI 53217
jjohnson@greendale.k12.wi.us
Subject: Re: Printers and Mac/Win Lan
From: cbrown <cbrown@cruzio.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:52:49 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Hello,
We got a mostly Mac house with about 4 PCs and 30 Macs. We want to print
from the PC's to printers on the Mac Lan. I know DAVE will do file
sharing but will it share printers. Or is there a PC equivalent to Dave
that will do file sharing and print sharing? Also, I hear that Windoze NT
suppprort AppleShare and Windoze 95/98 does not. Is this true and what
does it mean. If I put Windoze NT on these PCs will I be able to share
printers connected to them?
10bT Ethernet network
30 Macs of various models and systems
6 Postscript Printers connected to etherent (HP/Apple)'
4 PC's running a special PC only application called DissoMaster. I want
to be able to print from these PCs to any Postscript printer on the
ethernet network.
I can get 4 printers for about $600.00. If the solution costs any more
then this I think I'll have to pass and just get each machine it's own
printer.
TIA,
Chris Brown
cbrown@divorcehelpline.com
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Re: Re: Larger Network
From: "Welch, John C." <jwelch@aer.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 14:56:44 -0400
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
inline again
> From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
> Reply-To: "The Windows-MacOS cooperation list"<winmac@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu>
> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 13:03:22 -0400
> To: "The Windows-MacOS cooperation list" <winmac@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu>
> Subject: [WinMac] Re: Re: Larger Network
>
>
> Inline, again:
>
> At 12:41 PM 10/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
>> my comments inline, stuff cut, yadda....
>>
>>
>>> Here, I gently disagree with you; and this goes *directly* to my point:
>>> Usually, I've found disk drives to go first, and *not* (well-designed)
>>> server power supplies. And this reveals a fatal flaw for PCI PowerPC Macs:
>>> No PCI option card RAID controllers. And even *if* there were hardware PCI
>>> RAID controllers, then that would use up one valuable slot.
>>
>> Umm...there ARE PCI hardware RAID controllers...they aren't advertised as
>> nicely as they might be, but they exist.
>
> Oh really? Who makes them - I'm serious about this...
>
I'll get you some names dude.
>> Again... HOW many slots do you
>> need? If you really need more, then get a breakout box, which loses nothing
>> in speed, and can gain you in reliability, because it has it's own P/S.
>
> Not quite: The breakout boxes only support 33 mHz PCI bus speed. I asked
> at MacWorld on this one! :)
>
>> So if the CPU goes, you can hook the breakout box to another Mac, and be up
>> even faster. (although gentle disagreement is a rather nice change of pace
>> online. Wow...civil discourse...what next...manners? lol)
>>
>>>> As far as the slot issue goes, for a file server, again, if you really
> need
>>>> more than 2 dual - channel SCSI cards and a gigabit or ATM card, then I
>>>> *seriously* recommend you leave both the NT and Mac toys alone, and get
>>>> yourself a fat Sun Enterprise server or a nice 12 - processor AS/400,
>>>> because you are needing BIG iron.
>>>
>>> Here again, I gently disagree with you: For small LAN's for graphics,
>>> prepress, & multimedia - Ethernet bandwidth and lots of RAID-protected
>>> storage are the norm, and not so much CPU horsepower.
>>
>> Maybe, but by the time you get a Compaq or an IBM server with big RAID, BIG
>> I/O, etc, you are in the AS/400 area pricewise...and for reliability, an
>> AS/400 trounces all NT/Unix/Mac competitors. Also, a 400 is *very* easy to
>> set up, and is TRULY certified at C2 and better security, even ON a
>> network...unlike NT's PR sleight of hand.
>
> Agreed 100% on the security issue, but not on the cost. Plus, when you buy
> an AS/400 you're (pretty much) stuck with IBM stuff inside, with expensive
> upgrade options... At least in the x86 server space you have competition
> for "commodity" servers such as ProLiants, NetServers, Netfinity's, yada
> yada yada... This helps hold down the (hardware) price.
>
> Also, the issue of maintenance comes up: x86 boxes are a LOT easier to
> work on than an AS/400: You so much as sneeze at an AS/400 and IBM goes
> anal with the warranty and support charges.
>
Um, cost on a full- big dog x86 server from IBM/Compaq with multiple
processors gets into the low 40K range, and you can get an AS/400 for that.
There is also a lot more third party for the 400 than you think, but with a
400, you tend to not need it as much. Maintenance on a 400 is a different
world. They are built from the ground up to last. The last one I worked with
was bought around 91 - 92, does 100% of the computing functions for a city
of 40,000 citizens, and 400 employees, runs 24x7, and to this date in time
has *never* crashed. Yeah, the maintenance contracts might be more
expensive, but show me an NT box under constant heavy load that is
approaching a decade of uptime. Maybe it is easier to work on X86 boxes,
(although NOT a Compaq 1600R), but then again, you pretty much NEVER have to
work on an AS/400.
>>>> As far as NetWare goes, I wouldn't recommend migrating TO it, but if you
>>>> have a nice stable NetWare 5 setup, and it's running well, there is NO
> need
>>>> to just throw it away. Prosoft makes a nice client, and NetWare is loads
>>>> better than NT.
>>>
>>> I don't like to load additional components (such as the MacIPX stack) on a
>>> Mac because it's just one more thing to go wrong and cause crashes. Been
>>> there, done her...
>>
>> Agreed, but I have heard many nice things about the Prosoft client, and
>> NetWare's directory services are a lot more proven than the unreleased AD
>
> Agreed about NDS vs AD; but in a small LAN neither is used. For this user
> needing hardware for a 220 client (~250 node) LAN either AD or NDS should
> work... But I sure as hell wouldn't want to deploy AD on anything larger
> than a class C subnet!
>
> As for ProSoft's IPX client, it's just one more thing to support. As I
> said in the MacWorld seminar 9 weeks ago, you can make the server "bend" to
> support the Macs; or you can make the Macs "bend" to accommodate the
> server. With NetWare 5 you are pretty much now stuck with the latter...
>
Well, in the end, I have found it easier with Macs, because OT is very
flexible when used correctly, to just add the stack to the Mac. Causes less
problems than modifying the server. At least if the clients bend, a bad
install kills one box instead of 50.
have fun
john
Subject: Re: Larger Network Novell client for Macs)
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 14:14:19 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Jeff,
Please keep us posted as to how well the ProSoft client works with NetWare
5...
As I sit here typing while I'm formatting a 9 gig drive to NTFS in the
background,
Cheers!
Dan
At 01:00 PM 10/4/99 -0500, Jeff wrote:
>All -
>
>I can't comment on most of what this thread has gone into but I can tell you
>the latest Novell Mac client made by ProSoft Engineering performs quite well
>in our Novell 4.11 environment (an upgrade to 5 is coming soon) and a big
>step forward from what Mac users had to deal with in previous versions.
>
>Jeff Johnson
>Technology Coordinator
>Greendale School District
>Greendale WI 53217
>jjohnson@greendale.k12.wi.us
Subject: Hardware RAID for Macs
From: "Welch, John C." <jwelch@aer.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 15:19:56 -0400
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Here are some URLs
http://www.apstech.com/products
http://www.micronet.com/products/index.html
http://www.quadmation.com/RAID/Specs.html
http://www.phertron.com/storage/raid.html
http://www.optimatech.com/HST.html
http://www.hammerstorage.com/products/ft5.html
http://www.dpt.com/products/prod_raid.html
http://www.truesan.com/truesan6000fc.html
That should work!
john
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Re: Larger Network Novell client for Macs)
From: "Welch, John C." <jwelch@aer.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 15:21:52 -0400
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
It takes that long to format a 9GB drive? Wow...kinda slow...lol...
Having been doing background HD/FD/Zip formats for years now...Thanks
Fabrizio!
john
> From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
> Reply-To: "The Windows-MacOS cooperation list"<winmac@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu>
> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 14:14:19 -0400
> To: "The Windows-MacOS cooperation list" <winmac@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu>
> Subject: [WinMac] Re: Larger Network Novell client for Macs)
>
>
> Jeff,
>
> Please keep us posted as to how well the ProSoft client works with NetWare
> 5...
>
> As I sit here typing while I'm formatting a 9 gig drive to NTFS in the
> background,
> Cheers!
> Dan
>
> At 01:00 PM 10/4/99 -0500, Jeff wrote:
>> All -
>>
>> I can't comment on most of what this thread has gone into but I can tell you
>> the latest Novell Mac client made by ProSoft Engineering performs quite well
>> in our Novell 4.11 environment (an upgrade to 5 is coming soon) and a big
>> step forward from what Mac users had to deal with in previous versions.
>>
>> Jeff Johnson
>> Technology Coordinator
>> Greendale School District
>> Greendale WI 53217
>> jjohnson@greendale.k12.wi.us
>
>
> * Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
>
Subject: [WinMac] Re: Printers and Mac/Win Lan
From: Leonard Rosenthol <leonardr@lazerware.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:20:56 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 11:52 AM -0700 10/4/99, cbrown wrote:
>We got a mostly Mac house with about 4 PCs and 30 Macs. We want to print
>from the PC's to printers on the Mac Lan. I know DAVE will do file
>sharing but will it share printers.
Yup, DAVE supports printer sharing as well (for certain types=20
of printers) and I use it to share my LaserWriter with a bunch of=20
PC's (Win 9x and NT). You only need one copy of DAVE and one Mac=20
to serve the printer, and it doesn't even need to be dedicated Mac,=20
though if you can spare one it's probably better.
>Also, I hear that Windoze NT
>suppprort AppleShare and Windoze 95/98 does not. Is this true and what
>does it mean.
It means that you could (if you try hard) get NT machines to=20
talk to your AppleTalk networked printers directly w/o the use of=20
DAVE - but it's a LOT easier to just get DAVE.
Leonard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
=20 You've got a SmartFriend=81 in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Rosenthol Internet: leonardr@lazerware.com
America Online: MACgician
Web Site: <http://www.lazerware.com/>
=46TP Site: <ftp://ftp.lazerware.com/>
PGP Fingerprint: C76E 0497 C459 182D 0C6B AB6B CA10 B4DF 8067 5E65
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Hardware RAID for Macs
From: mark.maytum@pompy.com
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:46:22 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
John,
I think Dan's sticking point here (I just had this argument with him) is
that these are all SCSI-SCSI hardware bridges. With these you have to
stick the appropriate PCI SCSI card in your mac - these arrays look like a
single SCSI ID to your mac's PCI card. As opposed to say a Compaq 2SL
controller which *is* the RAID controller and it lives in a PCI slot.
We have a SCSI/SCSI hardware array and are running two ASIP servers off of
one multi-host RAID array. Works very well in fact. Have two basically
empty B&W G3's with LVD SCSI cards and memory in them. Matter of fact,
last weekend we upgraded to these from 9650's - all we had to do was
upgrade the OS on the boot partitions and plug in two servers. Took about
a half an hour.
I've had about 250 macs in & out of here in the past 15 years and with the
exception of the Mac Plus (and maybe a laptop or two) can't ever recall
replacing a power supply. I've replaced about a dozen PC power supplies.
Both of our Compaq 1600 power supplies have been replaced - but I suppose
that's how they scare you into buying the $600 redundant PS upgrade! :-)
I still think it's unfounded for people to be scared away from Apple
hardware for serving. OK, if somebody posts, "I was thinking of building
up an array of six B&W G3 web servers and dropping them off at Exodus on
the way home. Hope they work forever." OK, *that* might make me cringe.
:-)
Cheers,
Mark Maytum
Pompanoosuc Mills Corporation
"Welch, John C." <jwelch@aer.com>
Sent by: <winmac@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu>
10/04/99 03:19 PM
Please respond to "The Windows-MacOS cooperation list"
To: The Windows-MacOS cooperation list <winmac@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu>
cc:
Subject: [WinMac] Hardware RAID for Macs
Here are some URLs
http://www.apstech.com/products
http://www.micronet.com/products/index.html
http://www.quadmation.com/RAID/Specs.html
http://www.phertron.com/storage/raid.html
http://www.optimatech.com/HST.html
http://www.hammerstorage.com/products/ft5.html
http://www.dpt.com/products/prod_raid.html
http://www.truesan.com/truesan6000fc.html
Subject: Re: Larger Network Novell client for Macs)
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 15:43:16 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
No, thank you Dave Cutler! :)
At 03:21 PM 10/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
>It takes that long to format a 9GB drive? Wow...kinda slow...lol...
>
>Having been doing background HD/FD/Zip formats for years now...Thanks
>Fabrizio!
>
>john
>
>> From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
>> Reply-To: "The Windows-MacOS cooperation
list"<winmac@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu>
>> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 14:14:19 -0400
>> To: "The Windows-MacOS cooperation list" <winmac@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu>
>> Subject: [WinMac] Re: Larger Network Novell client for Macs)
>>
>>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> Please keep us posted as to how well the ProSoft client works with NetWare
>> 5...
>>
>> As I sit here typing while I'm formatting a 9 gig drive to NTFS in the
>> background,
>> Cheers!
>> Dan
[cut]
Subject: Re: Hardware RAID for Macs
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 16:28:42 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
No: These are all software RAID (or SAN) kits with plain PCI SCSI cards...
Nothing like a Mylex DAC960 - Or even an Ineptec AAA-131 real PCI hardware
RAID controller...
Cheers!
Dan
At 03:19 PM 10/4/99 -0400, Neutron Jack wrote:
>Here are some URLs
>
>http://www.apstech.com/products
>
>http://www.micronet.com/products/index.html
>
>http://www.quadmation.com/RAID/Specs.html
>
>http://www.phertron.com/storage/raid.html
>
>http://www.optimatech.com/HST.html
>
>http://www.hammerstorage.com/products/ft5.html
>
>http://www.dpt.com/products/prod_raid.html
>
>http://www.truesan.com/truesan6000fc.html
>
>
>That should work!
>
>john
End of WinMac Digest
* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2
on Mon Oct 04 1999 - 17:08:44 PDT