🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi,

I aggree with you in full : the benefits of 4.1 are excellent :

File compression ( the absolute safest I have come across )
Data Migration
Block Sub Allocation
etc..etc..etc..

Purely as a matter of investment protection and keeping in pace with
Technology I would never use 3.12 - I have implemented a Servers on 4.1 on
a 486 dx2/100 with 16 Megs - no mirroring ( but good backup ) for a total
of 3 users and Netware 3.12 was never a consideration.

Have you dealer do a serious rethink ( perhaps old stock on the shelve )

regards
Shahin C.


Paul Ayling <mabm07@dial.pipex.com> wrote in article
<01bbbb64$a2d96320$98fe82c1@ac31.dial.pipex.com>...
> 
> Hi - Can anybody commment on this scenario:
> 

In article <01bbbb64$a2d96320$98fe82c1@ac31.dial.pipex.com>, Paul Ayling wrote:
>
>Hi - Can anybody commment on this scenario:
Last summer, I worked for a company that was chock full o' CNE's that were
only able to work on Netware 3.x.  My friend loved netware 3.x and thought
it was the best thing on earth.... that is, until he saw netware 4.1.  I
think their company still recommends 3.x over 4.x because 4.1 isn't
"stable"... because they don't have anyone that knows their way around it.

You would probably be much better off with 4.x for a lot of reasons. A 
486/66 has enough hourspower, but you may need to add memory to handle 
the additional requirements of 4.x and intranetware. Make sure that you 
system board can support more than 32MB of RAM.

Paul Ayling wrote:
> 
> My supplier tells me that they didn't recommend 4.1 because the server
> hardware they had pigeonholed for the task (an old 66Mhz 486) wasn't up to
> the job. Yet according to Novell's web site, this isn't true. For the
> record, it is a
> 486/66 with 32Mb RAM, and sports a mirrored pair of 2GB SCSI hard disk
> drives. (Comments here would be especially welcome.)

A 66/486 with 32mb RAM is ok.   We had a 33/486 with 32mb RAM with a 150
users on it.
But, we have a EISA motherboard.    Anotherwords, your 'pipe' counts big
time.
(Now, upgraded to Proliant 4500r, because we kept running out of
diskspace.)

But, with 4.10, Compression and sub-block allocation do use CPU
horsepower.  
Depending your user habits, you may be fine.  (or well, just don't
enable compression on it)

4.10's admin tools are GUI based.  You can use them just fine under
Windows95.  Our selves, use Client32 network drivers.

But... the LIST 'upgrade' prices are:
  Upgrade Product                License                       Price
    From any NetWare 2, 3 or 4.x   5 to 5 user upgrade             $495
    From any NetWare 2, 3 or 4.x   10 to 10 user upgrade           $895
    From any NetWare 2, 3 or 4.x   25 to 25 user upgrade         $1,495
    From any NetWare 2, 3 or 4.x   50 to 50 user upgrade         $1,995

if you were at 4.x, then:
  Upgrade Product           License                Special Price
    From any NetWare 4.x      5 to 5 user upgrade            $395
    From any NetWare 4.x      10 to 10 user upgrade          $595
    From any NetWare 4.x      25 to 25 user upgrade          $695
    From any NetWare 4.x      50 to 50 user upgrade          $995

Also... this is for IntraNetWare.   They threw in a bunch of stuff.
Which some of it may apply to you.



-- 
From: Darwin Collins   Email: dcollins@fastlane.net
HomePage: http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/dcollins
NDS utilities and links to support and utility pages.

In article <01bbbb64$a2d96320$98fe82c1@ac31.dial.pipex.com>, 
mabm07@dial.pipex.com says...
>My supplier tells me that they didn't recommend 4.1 because the server
>hardware they had pigeonholed for the task (an old 66Mhz 486) wasn't up to
>the job. Yet according to Novell's web site, this isn't true. For the
>record, it is a 
>486/66 with 32Mb RAM, and sports a mirrored pair of 2GB SCSI hard disk 
>drives. (Comments here would be especially welcome.)

You shouldn't have a problem with that set up. Actually, the differences you 
see with faster CPU is negligible on a NW server for the most part. The 
bottleneck with a system described above would not be with the CPU, but likel 
with the hard drive controller, but I digress...

The short answer is that the machine described above would have worked fine.

>Generally, can anybody see the rationale for a company new to the world of
>Novell networking starting off with 3.12 in September 1996?

Absolutely NONE (in my opinion), with the possible exception of 
ignorance/ineptitude. That was a mistake. I would be asking for a change 
immediately.


  Herb Parsons, CNE
  MIS, Rhema Inc.

> I've just upgraded my Windows 95 peer to peer network of 6 computers to
> Novell 3.12. Or rather my supplier has done so. That was about 4 weeks
ago.
> All is going fine, but I found out only last Friday that NetWare 4.1 has
> been around for about 18 months. And its cheaper.

> Generally, can anybody see the rationale for a company new to the world
of
> Novell networking starting off with 3.12 in September 1996?
> 

Paul,
I've installed a number of 3.12 servers this year and I have replaced a
number of 3.1x servers with new hardware and kept the existing version of
NetWare.

I am Novell Certified with both 3.12 and 4.1 and I have found that 3.12 is
more stable with a number of older applications.  The hardware you
specified does not answer one way or the other and the price is comparable.
 Until the current version (4.11) ships to the general public the whole web
thing does not matter.

My suggestion would be to talk to the guys that put this in and find out
why, barring the hardware claims they chose what they did.  It may have
been their lack of working experience with the 4.x product in which case
you should consider yourself lucky to not have paid for their learning
time.

Mark Liechty CNE,MCP

Hello, I have installed several Novell 4.1 servers in sites ranging from
400+ user city wide systems to 5 user setups.  Here are a few
cosiderations:

* Apply all the patches available from the Novell web site.  There are many
bugs but the patches make 4.1 stable.
* Use a backup that FULLY supports NDS.  Backing up the Novell 3.1x bindery
was very well supported.  4.1x has very few backups that can do this
reliably.

Good Luck!
Michael Elliott


Paul Ayling <mabm07@dial.pipex.com> wrote in article
<01bbbb64$a2d96320$98fe82c1@ac31.dial.pipex.com>...
> 
> Hi - Can anybody commment on this scenario:
> 
> I've just upgraded my Windows 95 peer to peer network of 6 computers to
> Novell 3.12. Or rather my supplier has done so. That was about 4 weeks
ago.
> All is going fine, but I found out only last Friday that NetWare 4.1 has
> been around for about 18 months. And its cheaper.

Mark Liechty <bpmsf@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<01bbbd8c$820d4740$21b1bacd@markliechty.WORKGROUP>...
> > I've just upgraded my Windows 95 peer to peer network of 6 computers to
> > Novell 3.12. Or rather my supplier has done so. That was about 4 weeks
> ago.
> > All is going fine, but I found out only last Friday that NetWare 4.1
has
> > been around for about 18 months. And its cheaper.
> 
> > Generally, can anybody see the rationale for a company new to the world
> of
> > Novell networking starting off with 3.12 in September 1996?
> > 
> 
Paul,
	Novell 3x and 4x offer very different functionality. For those say 'eh?',
I
stand by the belief that if you are going to run Novell 4x strickly under
bindery 
emulation, you should instead install 3x. You should only install 4x if you
needs
require what 4x offers. Many IS folks are geared to always install the
latest
and greatest versions. I have turned around several Novell 4x upgrades
simply
because the upgrades weren't needed. 
	I strongly suspect that a small 6 PC LAN wouldn't even begin to tap into 
4x's power. Not knowing the entire situation, I suspect 3x was probably the
right
solution for you.

Kevin Gilbert, LO Rochester

"Paul Ayling" <mabm07@dial.pipex.com> wrote:


>Hi - Can anybody commment on this scenario:

>I've just upgraded my Windows 95 peer to peer network of 6 computers to
>Novell 3.12. Or rather my supplier has done so. That was about 4 weeks ago.
>All is going fine, but I found out only last Friday that NetWare 4.1 has
>been around for about 18 months. And its cheaper.

>Warning bells are beginning to sound. My supplier never told me there was
>an option. What's more, as we plan to get involved with the Internet, it
>seems that I would love to upgrade to IntraNetware - but can't.

>My supplier tells me that they didn't recommend 4.1 because the server
>hardware they had pigeonholed for the task (an old 66Mhz 486) wasn't up to
>the job. Yet according to Novell's web site, this isn't true. For the
>record, it is a 
>486/66 with 32Mb RAM, and sports a mirrored pair of 2GB SCSI hard disk 
>drives. (Comments here would be especially welcome.)

>Generally, can anybody see the rationale for a company new to the world of
>Novell networking starting off with 3.12 in September 1996?

>All comments would be very gratefully received.

>Paul Ayling
>Writing Machine, Winchester, Hants, UK

The world is changing. I don't like Win95 but I still work with it.
Netware 3.12 is much suitable for a small Lan but the price of 3.12
and 4.1 is same, at least in my place. I think Novell would add more
function to 4.1 but not 3.12 so we still have to learn more and more.
If you install a 3.12 OS to your company , your boss will ask you why
you install a old version. It is nothing to do with technical view. 

Wilson Wong

The price of 3.12 and 4.1 should be close to identical. There is nothing
wrong with 3.12 for smaller lans where administration is all local and
peaple/hardware seldom change. But for the same money, go for 4.1 or 4.11
(IntraNetWare).

As far as a 486 DX/2 66 with 32 megs of ram, you have plenty of horse power
and ram for file and printer serving. My home NetWare 4.1 server is a 486
DX 33mhz with 16 megs of ram and it runs fine. If you run heavy duty stuff
like a demanding database application that runs as a NLM, a 486 likely will
not make you happy, but then 3.12 does not solve or compinsate for that
situation either. My guess is your supplier did not think you would catch
onto 4.1's existance or something.

Leroy Harvey, CNA 4.1

As a consultant i am often comfronted with similar problems by my clients,
i have to take into mind further developments and weigh them up against
company functionality. True Netware 4x is in my my opinion a far better
system than 3.12 however as a end user you can get more support from  other
companys that cannot support 4.x. There is also the fact that most
applications that run on a Novell system are not NDS aware and therefore
you could in effect have a inoporational system . My advice is to ask the
company why they didnt install 4.x and ask for it a plain termonology. PS
when you get to understand netware 4.x NDS it rocks

Wilson Wong <wilsonw@hkstar.net> wrote in article
<55f6k0$bi5@capella.hkstar.com>...
> "Paul Ayling" <mabm07@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> >Hi - Can anybody commment on this scenario:
> 
> >I've just upgraded my Windows 95 peer to peer network of 6 computers to
> >Novell 3.12. Or rather my supplier has done so. That was about 4 weeks
ago.
> >All is going fine, but I found out only last Friday that NetWare 4.1 has
> >been around for about 18 months. And its cheaper.
> 
> >Warning bells are beginning to sound. My supplier never told me there
was
> >an option. What's more, as we plan to get involved with the Internet, it
> >seems that I would love to upgrade to IntraNetware - but can't.
> 
> >My supplier tells me that they didn't recommend 4.1 because the server
> >hardware they had pigeonholed for the task (an old 66Mhz 486) wasn't up
to
> >the job. Yet according to Novell's web site, this isn't true. For the
> >record, it is a 
> >486/66 with 32Mb RAM, and sports a mirrored pair of 2GB SCSI hard disk 
> >drives. (Comments here would be especially welcome.)
> 
> >Generally, can anybody see the rationale for a company new to the world
of
> >Novell networking starting off with 3.12 in September 1996?
> 
> >All comments would be very gratefully received.
> 
> >Paul Ayling
> >Writing Machine, Winchester, Hants, UK
> 
> The world is changing. I don't like Win95 but I still work with it.
> Netware 3.12 is much suitable for a small Lan but the price of 3.12
> and 4.1 is same, at least in my place. I think Novell would add more
> function to 4.1 but not 3.12 so we still have to learn more and more.
> If you install a 3.12 OS to your company , your boss will ask you why
> you install a old version. It is nothing to do with technical view. 
> 
> Wilson Wong
> 
> 

In article <01bbcff1$7fd2a5c0$f090989e@netsol.demon.co.uk>, "Chris Mallinson" <Chris.Mallinson@netsol.co.uk> wrote:
..
>you could in effect have a inoporational system . My advice is to ask the
>company why they didnt install 4.x and ask for it a plain termonology...
..

I'm not sure if it is your intent to suggest here that installing 3.12 instead 
of 4.1 is somehow unprofessional or slipshod.  Believe it or not, there *are* 
some good reasons for choosing 3.12 over 4.1 in certain cases -- particularly 
where training is concerned.

+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
|  David Ehrens               |  email: david@pencilnet.com        |
|  Pencil/NET, Inc.           |  phone: (508) 999-5259             |
|  1750 Purchase Street       |  fax:   (508) 999-0107             |
|  New Bedford, MA 02740      |  WWW:   http://www.pencilnet.com   |
+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+

3.12 was an excellent product for a single site single server lan, works
performs well but you may need to take your server down one a month to stop
memeory leaking away..

Anything larger use 4.xx excellent for wan use if you dont use ISDN2, and
have leased circuits and know how to partition and seup time
syncronisation.

Lets face it .. keep it simple????

Shaun
Leeds
UK

David Ehrens <david@pencilnet.com> wrote in article
<56dpom$2bo_002@iriscom.ici.net>...
> In article <01bbcff1$7fd2a5c0$f090989e@netsol.demon.co.uk>, "Chris
Mallinson" <Chris.Mallinson@netsol.co.uk> wrote:
> ..
> >you could in effect have a inoporational system . My advice is to ask
the
> >company why they didnt install 4.x and ask for it a plain termonology...
> ..
> 
> I'm not sure if it is your intent to suggest here that installing 3.12
instead 
> of 4.1 is somehow unprofessional or slipshod.  Believe it or not, there
*are* 
> some good reasons for choosing 3.12 over 4.1 in certain cases --
particularly 
> where training is concerned.
> 
> +-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
> |  David Ehrens               |  email: david@pencilnet.com        |
> |  Pencil/NET, Inc.           |  phone: (508) 999-5259             |
> |  1750 Purchase Street       |  fax:   (508) 999-0107             |
> |  New Bedford, MA 02740      |  WWW:   http://www.pencilnet.com   |
> +-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
> 

shaun wrote:
> 
> 3.12 was an excellent product for a single site single server lan, works
> performs well but you may need to take your server down one a month to stop
> memeory leaking away..

I've one school system where the (3.12) file server ran over 200 days
flawlessly. This was through the whole school year with continual
working use.

> 
> Lets face it .. keep it simple????

And do you know how many people can't understand the reliability of
simplicity!? It's great -- no real stress.

-- 
Datahelp - Computer Support Services
Bill Kreps, Owner
300 S.W. 'F' St.
Richmond, IN.  47374-5229            (317) 966-6821 (Voice & FAX)

My Server, 3.12, has been up 85 days at this time.  85 days ago it went
down because of a bad drive, not memory leak. First bad drive in over two
years when one was bad right out of the box.

Bill Kreps <datahelp@infocom.com> wrote in article
<328C825B.7B6C@infocom.com>...
> shaun wrote:
> > 
> > 3.12 was an excellent product for a single site single server lan,
works
> > performs well but you may need to take your server down one a month to
stop
> > memeory leaking away..
> 
> I've one school system where the (3.12) file server ran over 200 days
> flawlessly. This was through the whole school year with continual
> working use.
> 
> > 
> > Lets face it .. keep it simple????
> 
> And do you know how many people can't understand the reliability of
> simplicity!? It's great -- no real stress.
> 
> -- 
> Datahelp - Computer Support Services
> Bill Kreps, Owner
> 300 S.W. 'F' St.
> Richmond, IN.  47374-5229            (317) 966-6821 (Voice & FAX)
>