IT Employment

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Novell to Windows switch

0 helpful
37 replies

by mick11

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

As a part of my contract work, I have been approached with a potential project of converting a Novell server over to a Windows 2k Server environment. There are only about 10 workstations, which are all running some platform of Windows currently and no direct connection to the outside world.

I was wondering if anyone out there has had any experiences with this and would be willing to share their trials and tribulations.

Thanks in advance,

37 replies

by jim phelps

I haven't had any experience with this myself, but I have had the following experience:

I have worked all my life in a strictly Novell environment (from a networking perspective) until this year. I am now in an all Microsoft shop.

Things I took for granted (e.g. drives will be available when you click on them) from my Novell days are now only dreams from the past. I have found that Microsoft needs to go a long way to equal Novell in terms of stability, reliability, architecture, etc etc.

There is one thing that is particularly irksome with an a Microsoft network. So much of the network is client-centered, rather than server-centered. This means that you must make continual adjustments and settings on the PC level. For example, even though you have mapped My Documents to the user's network folder, Outlook ALWAYS defaults to the My Documents folder on C:. What I want to know is, who is Microsoft to dictate to me where I want to save my files?

I will consider the possibility that our network may not be set up optimally. But I have no control over these issues, I just have to make it all work.

In a Novell environment, everything simply worked, and worked very well.

If I were you, I would make sure that I designed the network with Novell architecture in mind. Make it as Novell-like as possible -- i.e. server-centric. In this way, you'll avoid many of the hassles inherent in doing things the Microsoft way.

by jim_maclachlan

I'm primarily a Netware shop & had to install a Win2K server 1.5 years ago. The thing that gave me the most trouble was setting up the file system for the users. If I were to swtich to a MS file server, I think I'd have to structure my user directories differently for security.

In Novell, I have a directory where each user is automatically setup with a folder & 2 subfolders, one shared to all on a read only basis, the other for their private files. No one even knows if they have other folders or files, unless the user puts them in their shared directory.

I found this very difficult to setup on the Windows server - impossible in the case of new folders, unless they are created below the level of the first sub folders. MS has a LONG was to go in file rights.

I also found a patch for Oracle recreated the Everyone group on the server & shared out - with full access - the roots of the two drives on that system. I've never had that experience in Novell.

by oz_media

I contract for two Netware shops, if they swapped it out for MS I would either:

1) Demand double tha pay for doing twice the work

2) Find another contract

To move from a secure and stable environment into a Microsoft nightmare would take some REAL convincing. I would question the company's motives. Usually the only time this happens is when a MCSE is hired or an admin that only knows Microsoft products.

I would question the admin (or decision maker of the switch) and his reasons before wasting company time and unlimited amounts of money and resources on an unstable and regularly targeted OS. What a mistake!

If yuo HAVE to switch it over for whatever ridiculous reason, like Jim says, make it as Novell friendly as possible, if that can be done!?

I used to work on Microsnot servers but it was too much work and way too much hassle. If I wanted to work that hard, I'd find a real job.

CRAZY is all I can say?!

by jim phelps

Oz:

Whenever I've had my fill of M$ "networking", I come to one of two conclusions:

either:
(1) Microsoft started off with their own brand of networking, not being that good at it, and built in some really bad concepts; and over the years, they've never improved on these concepts (e.g. PC-centric, rather than centrally-managed, in SO MANY WAYS! Don't you agree that that is a STUPID way of doing things?)
or (2) Microsoft decided to do things differently than Novell, so that they could offer a truly different product.

I'm not sure which is the case. But what really makes me sick is when companies decide to abandon Novell for Microsoft just because "everyone else is doing it"!

I don't know if you know it or not, but Microsoft has been pressuring school systems in the US to switch to an ANNUAL LICENSING FEE on software THEY HAVE ALREADY PURCHASED! But suppose a school system doesn't want to do this? Microsoft then demands proof that that school system isn't pirating any Microsoft software! Which would be cheaper and easier, to prove, at a moment's notice, that you aren't pirating Microsoft software, or to simply cave in to the pressure?

That would have been a great opportunity for some of these school systems to consider Linux. As you can probably imagine, when you have 1000 PCs, you can afford to try something like Linux, because once you get it working and get a good image, it's easy to replicate and distribute that to all 1000 PCs.

by cass.harley

I agree with that.

Windows is pretty easy to use, but getting your hands dirty with another o/s while still in school would definetly be a good learning experience.

by oz_media

Well with Novell teaming up with Ximian Linux and creating a decent desktop, things may change.

I think this is the best idea Novell has had since dumping Word Perfect.

Novell has always been focused solely on servers and server architecture, they don't make flight simulator software, they don't make racing games.
They don't make keyboards, they don't make mice. They just build servers and do it in a way that others can only hope for.

If only the world has their eyes open and paid attention to details. Like you say, everyone uses MS because everyone uses it. Sheep and followers. The scary part is these are the people running businesses, not just kids under peer pressure but people expected to make decisions that will impact others livelihoods!
SCARY, JIM, SCARY!

by cass.harley

I think I have established the fact that I am a newbie thrown into the sys admin role.

However, we used to (up until january of this year) run just 1 Novell 3.12 server, and 26 win95 workstations.

At the beginning of this year a win2000 terminal server was added to this, this is also the same time I was given this role.

The novell 3.12 is dying (our software vendors no longer support it and the software is causing major problems) and we have been in talks with our external IT consultants and settled on an SBS server. (yes they are an MSCE mob).

I was all for the bringing in of an SBS server as opposed to say a Novell 6 server. My argument was they this firm is not big enough to support a f/t or am experienced sys admin, so the role is thrust upon someone within the firm who knows which side of the mouse is up. I argued that 1 o/s is easier to master then 2, and that windows is easier to master for someone who has been working in windows.

But now you are scaring me.

Is it really that bad?????

by jim phelps

It is really that bad, Cass!

You'll find a lot of little things which really irk you, the deeper you get into Microsoft.

And as far as an untrained person doing sys admin, that's a big mistake. Microsoft put out the idea that their stuff is so simple, anybody can do it, because they use the stolen MAC interface (i.e. Windows).

But network administration is a complex issue. You HAVE to be trained and have experience in order to understand all of the complex issues involved. So don't for a minute buy that bill of goods from Microsoft.

by bchesmer

Think again if you make that statement. SBS May look easier, but it is definatly a wolf in sheeps clothing!

by ziskey

It's not that bad... I would be wary of taking advice from people who feel terms like "MicroSNOT" and M$ are relevant to the discussion. However in this case I would have chosen to keep the Novell solution.

Keeping/Upgrading a product is almost always more cost effective than bringing in an entirely new solution. Licensing and training costs will outweigh any benefits regardless if you're moving to UNIX or Windows.

by tom

Make sure the person who wants you to do this is willing to accept a downgrade in reliability and
performance. Especially if the server will be both for file sharing and printing.

Good Luck.

by jimhm

Talk them into staying with Novell - a Secure System -

Are they going to be sharing applications? Or are the just sharing resources - if only resources then Novell is the best - most secure -

MS has it unsecure track record - Novell woke up, granted it was a little late but they have past MS Network by a mile ....

MS Network is base on the old technology from IBM network (the Netbios days) - old old technology which they haven't changed ... can still do the old Net Use commands ...

Talk them into staying with Novell - better - Secure - and user friendly ... Skip the MS Hype ..

by eggy

Mick,

I've been considering a similar change. There is much to think about. By now you see that people have pretty strong feelings about their favorite OS. It can make it difficult to get an objective opinion. Be cautious.

Would your client consider retaining NetWare, to use for what it does best, and adding Win2K? There might be concern about the 'overhead' of administering & maintaining two OS's, but some research might show it to be equal to or less than that of a Win2K only. That is, retaining NetWare may actually reduce some overhead. I suspect this might prove true, but my opinion is based more on gut-feel that facts. I'd be interested to hear others' comments about it.

Thanks,
Pete

by jim phelps

Use Novell for the networking part of it, and Windows 2000 for the desktop part of it. In this way, you'll have absolutely the best of both worlds.

After all, you won't have Microsoft ANYTHING, because Microsoft stole the Windows 2000 architecture from DEC.

Don't go anywhere near XP or Microsoft networking. These products are Microsoft creations and are therefore dogs.

by oz_media

That's how I'm setup. I login from a W2KPro notebook to a Netware 5.1 server.

You seem VERY adamant about the MS crap and Novell's perfection, to that I say, YAY!! Somebody else can see the truth.

Wasn't it the X-Files that said "The Truth is Out There". NO S*^T, the truth is right in front of us, people just keep ignoring it.:-)

by lhopper3

Microsoft has a wonderful document on the subject.
Microsoft Knowledge Base Article - 301542

The migration from one platform to the other is fairly streight forward. I've done them in both directions, once for the same client. Is there a definite business case for the shift or is it all marketing? Good luck and pay special attention to file level security (it is a bit different between the two systems).

by robotech

I worked for years in PBX/Telephony, NORTEL certified and everything. As technicians we knew that MITEL made a better PBX than NORTEL, still we ended up installing more NORTEL switches than MITEL. Why?

1. NORTEL was cheaper.
2. NORTEL's phones and KSUs were sleek, had cool ring tones, office friendly colors etc.
3. NORTEL had a much more user friendly interface which made programming easier, no need to translate nemonics.
4. And NORTEL had a hell of a marketing team, extending credit etc. and sponsoring local sports events (among other things).

The moral of this story is that NOVELL sat on it's backside and watched M$ outmarket it into the position that it occupies today. NOVELL stubbornly refused to drop prices and compete with M$ simply because they knew that they had a superior product. As Engineers and technicians we know that, so let's not preach to the converted. The problem is that we don't make purchasing decisons. We don't get invited to the fancy cocktail parties... well most times we aren't.

If Novell is going to create some serious competition for M$ in the corporate setting, they need to do their marketing homework. If they do their marketing homework, and provide us Engineers and techs with the tools to convert from M$ to NOVELL then I assure you that we can start reading M$'s last rites.

by jim phelps

Oz:

At my previous job, we had Netware 5.x and 6.x on the servers, and the Netware 6.x client on the desktops. We ran either Windows 95 or Windows 2000, with a few running Windows 98 or DOS.

EVERYTHING WORKED GREAT! We had a few problems, but not too many. Best of all, YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO LOG INTO THE STUPID PC! That has GOT to be one of the stupidest things about Microsoft "networking".

I can't tell you how frustrated I get when I see various profiles of long-gone users on a particular PC. We don't need any of that on the PC, we need it ON THE NETWORK!

Stuff like that shows me that Microsoft is a "johnny come lately" network wannabee, whose attitude is "me too me too". Unfortunately, Bill Gates is a VERY EFFECTIVE Pied Piper.

by cmiller

By all means convert them. It will cost them more to do the same basic functions on a Windows platform and it will be less reliable - thus more service calls!!!

by robotech

Yeah I tried, last night. I downloaded the trial version, burned the boot CD image and tried to install it. It only detected my CD-ROM, could not detect my popular Western Digital hard drive.

Today I got a Microsft Exchange Server 2003 Evaluation Kit in the Mail. I guarantee you that all my hardware will be detected and installed automatically. And if I keep my AV software up to date, configure my router properly, and maintain my backup software running properly I shouldn't have any major problems.

Until Novell becomes as install and user friendly as Microsoft, they will continue to be "the other operating system".

by netmutt

I've installed Netware 6.5 many times (all through beta and now in final release)without any problems at all. Maybe if Microsoft fans didn't have to have everything handed to them on a plate . . .

by oz_media

Sorry but I've Beta'd NW6.5 and it is sweet!
I never had ANY config problems and my raid controllers were found no problem. Why would you instal Netware on a system running a WD drive anyhow? It sorta defeats the purpose of reliability when you don't install to a redundant drive?

by eternal confusion

Develop real network and hardware skills and go that route. My 16 year old can install MS, but he cannot administer it, keep it stable or provide a decent working environment with it. Novell is a stable and solid platform from which the buggieness of the Microsoft environment was stolen.

I could have just deleted this, but thought an apology is more in order, sorry bad day, but Novell is still better ;-)

by rabbit_runner

The information below is not an attempt to support or deride any OS. This is simply the steps we followed and the problems we encountered.

I worked for a company, back a few years ago. They had been running two Novel 4.11 and 4.12 servers. These were used for two main purposes, file storage, and print server. Since this company was into graphics, the file storage was a major problem because of the extreme size of these files. A management decision was made to switch to a Win2k server, migrate the printers first, then migrate all of the files. NOTE: the space on our Novell servers could not be upgraded. The hardware was limited and no additional drives could be added. Plus no other drives could be found which were compatible with our current equipment. The version of Novell that we were using, did not support TCP/IP
Stage 1). Assign IP addresses to each of the print devices. Some were printers and some print devices. (we were in the printing business)
Stage 2). After all printers were assigned IP's, we then needed to visit each workstation (Win98) and re-configure each printer to use the printer share from the server.
Stage 3). We allowed the users two weeks to test their printers and report any bugs they may have encountered. This uncovered a problem when printing out our reports. These reports were in batches of 500-600 jobs at at time. We had to discover a unique registry setting to overcome this problem.
Stage 4). We copied all of our files to the new server (over night to ensure no files were in use). Then we changed the script which mapped the drives for the users files.
Stage 5). we revisited each workstation and removed the Novell Network Client so that all systems would log onto the Microsoft NT domain.
Stage 6). Users came in on Monday and the new file system was tested. All Windows users had not problems. But since we used graphics filed, the Mac's were not able to use the files. It seems that during the copy, the 'name-space' was not included. This required that the files be re-copied, but using a Mac system as the intermediary. There may be other ways, but we were pressed for time. After the copy the files were now available
Stage 7). We needed to re-train the Mac users on how to access the files, as the connection wasd via TCP/IP and not IPX.
Stage 8). One last problem (and this was a huge one). The application we were running was switched from the Novell server to the Windows server. The application would copy over just fine, but when attempting to open a file, it would not lock. This allowed several users to access the file and to write to it at the same time, causing garbage and junk. We had to work for over a week to find the solution to this issue.

All in all, the process went fairly smoothly. But there was a problem with the administration. They and been expecting a flawless transition. Even though they had been properly informed that there was the definite potential for problems, this information did not sink in. They had made the original decision. Also many of the workers were asking why make the change when things were working smoothly with the old system.
Phase Final). This required supporting the decision of the administration, explaining and supporting the transition, and educating the workers that this was the best answer to their problem.

In many of the previous posts (see above) there was strong support of a particular OS and usually a negative view to Microsoft. In the situation that I just explained, regardless of my own personal views, it was my job and responsibility to support the decision of the administration. Even though the users felt that a 'status quo' would be best, It was up to me to explain the reasons and purpose of the change. Before any administrative decision, I was able to give my personal views and give reasons for supporting those ideas. However, once a decision was made, I needed to only support their plan of action. Should I have verbally expressed my dis-like for their plan, then I would only have been digging a hole for myself. This would be true for an IT employee as well as an IT contractor.

Michael R.

by oz_media

I know you're not supporting either OS but decided to support managment decisions.

just to clear any misinterpretations by the poster...

You were limited by your servers storage capability, not the OS. Your version of Netware used IPX insetad of TCP/IP, newer versions of Netware utilize TCP/IP.

Your transition did seem somewhat seamless, all in all, but the problems you experienced seemed to be MS related and not as a result of the Netware file system.

I understand this decision was out of your hands but the for the cost of administration and licensing, you probably could have bought new servers with larger RAID cintrollers, and upgraded Netware to at least 5.1.

Sometimes, management can't see the Netware Trees through the AD Forest.

OM

by eternal confusion

The moral to the story is go with whatever administration decides on, regardless of consequence, as long as you took the time to voice your objections. Is that what I am reading? I have taken this path in the psat, the It is my job to support administration path, I now sit on two major pains in the butt (applications) that the staff blames on me for putting it into place.

by bchesmer

See if they would be interested in upgrading the Novell and forgetting about the MS OS. Tell them / show them the benefits of 6.x!

by robotech

I think some of you posters are too quick to insult, by doing so you build up a resentment and create a them versus us complex (Microsoft vs. Novell).
My Windows 2003 Server didn't install either, my Motherboard is faulty.

PS - It's not me, it's the Motherboard.

by oz_media

What an hypocrite!
Fig A) Your slagging of Netware;

"Just tried to Install Novell Netware 6.5
Yeah I tried, last night. I downloaded the trial version, burned the boot CD image and tried to install it. It only detected my CD-ROM, could not detect my popular Western Digital hard drive."

"Today I got a Microsft Exchange Server 2003 Evaluation Kit in the Mail. I guarantee you that all my hardware will be detected and installed automatically."

But was it? NO your mobo was dead. Way to diagnose, Robotech! Did the MS install fix your problem, I think not. So before you got telling someone that they are too hasty to jump on the slander wagon, listen to yourself.

Now, I guarantee, without ANY DOUBT, Netware would have run smoother, used less resources and accomodated more users than your MS nightmare. Not too mention, easier to install and configure, easier to manage (less updating and patching of junk) and more cost effective with a greater ROI.

by robotech

Windows XP Pro worked, in spite of the MOBO fault, so I guess that's still a feather in M$ hat. And it was reason for me not to suspect the MOBO. Anyway, I still think that Novell doesn't do as good in marketing as Microsoft, and there are many Novell engineers I know who have expressed that opinion.
Question: Why is Microsoft and Intel based x86 boards so popular today?

Because even though Mackintosh made a darn good PC, they weren?t in touch with peoples real needs, or how people think. They were too busy trying to think like engineers, and selling their stuff at break-bank prices to a public that was getting used to the idea of machines balancing their checkbooks etc.

I get upset each time I have to install a M$ patch, but I guarantee you that all Operating Systems have a vulnerability. Code can be written to turn legitimate processes into a malicious attack, and even LINUX and UNIX systems from time to time have to be patched against discovered vulnerabilities.

I want NOVELL to do better in their marketing etc. Not because I hate Microsoft, but because I know that competition will bring the best out of the industry. If these guys were in M$ position today, they would be robbing us blind. Thanks to Microsoft, many people have come to learn to operate a PC, and monotonous tasks can now be automated or finished in a short period.

I?m a Network Administrator, but I do it as a consult for various clients. I don?t have to baby-sit my servers or my networks. When patches come out, or even new viruses, I?m not running around like a headless chicken. My networks are locked down from the Cat5 cable right to the desktop, yet my users don?t feel imprisoned. It?s not just the OS; as I learned in my High School computer class 15 years ago, the user is a part of the computer system. Microsoft has worked on that simple premise and has allowed the user to interact easily with a chunk of metal. I don?t care what ideas M$ may have stolen from Novell, the fact is, today?s businesses need it right now, who can deliver? So what if M$ needs to patch their OS? Maybe we should lobby for stiffer penalties for cyber-terrorism. That would discourage people from using beneficial tools to write malicious code.
1000 missiles could not have prevented 911, but more alert security personnel and better intelligence could have done the job as many in Washington have said. As long as humans are in the equation, we cannot expect a perfect system, but we do the best we can with what we have. And if it means patching an OS every two weeks, so be it. If the major corporate entities start using Novell, they are still going to get hacked one way or the other.

PS ? Type your articles in Word, use the spelling and grammar checker, then cut and paste your comments.

by robotech

This is a quote from first post in the other Novell discussion we are involved in:
"Vol 14 of Connection Magazine posed some really interesting views towards the furtuer of Windows Servers vs Novell's.

With the roll out of Netware 6.5 that comes bundled with Apache web Server, my SQL and PHP/PERL (AMP), Novell's open source promises are now coming true.

But with performance that FAR exceeds anything from Windoze, will there be a market change in the near future or is Novell positioned to make a slow crawling comeback?

"Novell tests indicate that MySQL running on Windows can only support about 50 users while the same database running on NetWare using equivalent hardware supports 1200-1300 users"

Did you realize all the things that Novell is squeezing into one package to compete with M$?
While Novell and others were sleeping M$ sneaked in NT, 2000, etc. and captured market share. Now they are working hard to take it back. As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

And as long as we can get reasonable performance from Windoze, it will remain the popular OS/NOS.
As soon as I order my new Server from DELL, I'll test Netware 6.5 etc. And if I see where I can recommend it to a client I will. I would never have a client move from Novell 3.x etc to Windows knowing what Netware 6.5 can do, but if I can't find an application running on Novell to do what the customer want's. I'll weigh my options between Sun, RedHat, Windoze. May the best OS/NOS win.

by oz_media

The first step is to NEVER tell me to calm down, anyone who knows me personally will agree.

Secondly, you keep going back and forth between Windows vs Novell to desktop Os's. What is it?

Windoze is needed on the desktop because their near monopoly created the mass use of cheap desktop OS's. We now compare all other software costs to those of Microsnot. If Netware had developed a desktop OS, which will happen soon since acquiring Ximian, it would at least work. They chose not to though, why? Because it would detract from their focus on building reliable, secure and stable server operating systems.

Now, WinXPPro isn't REALLY THAT bad even though as an OS it pretty much sucks unless stripped down to the Win2KPro equivalent, in which case why upgrade?

As for malicious code being executable anywhere, you're right but Netware doesn't patch patches, nor do they have security threats daily. They are NOS engineers that ONLY do one thing and do it right, they aren't cashing in on Flight Simulators and joysticks, just a decent and capable NOS.

Lastly, you need to know how to make suggestions.

I won't type in Word and run spell check then paste here, I don't care enough to do that.
Besides, the IE spell checker is easier and even then I hardly ever use it.

by netmutt

As someone who has migrated a number of large UK companies (20k seats) from Novell to Microsoft I think I know a little about most headaches that can occur.

On the size of network that you're talking about, I don't think that you'll initially notice much difference (apart from security being weakened). But unless you have someone with the appropriate training and experiance, the system perfomance will drop considerably.

I agree the with majority here, stick with Novell. You need to investigate the uses of the new system (file, print, what applications are needed, security requirements etc). I know of a major UK bank who changed their mind from MS to Netware when I got this information into the right people.

If you do move to Windows however, make life easy on yourself and use eDirectory instead of AD.

by tewman2

I'm an MCSE, I've worked with Microsoft for years, I believe that they are my bread maker, fixing their product put the food on my table. As long as they keep selling software I have Job security. I've seen a lot of imporvments in microsoft products, and Windows xp is the best that I've seen on the market as far as user friendlyness, and it makes it possible for dumb users to have a pc.
Anti monoply laws stops microsoft form making it totally full proof, or maybe better fool proof. It's easy for dumb users to screw it up. However when it comes to networks, they really fall short, they have some great ideas for manageablility, however they focused too much on making it easy to manage, rather then eliminating the need to manage some of it.
we run several novell servers, and several win2k, adding some win2k3 this fall. we've found some things work really good on novell. if it isn't broke don't fixit. Other things slow everybody down. some of our sybase sql databases just got moved to MS server because they were slow on novell.
I've designed, and administered networks as small as 35clients, and as large as 500 clients.
Always ran into issues with Active Directory that you don't ever see happening with Novell.
A mixed environment is best.

by oz_media

That's pretty much my take too, although I have less MS experience, by choice.

I agree, when it comes to apps, they will generall run faster and mroe efficiently, newer code is supported etc. with MS.

As far as NDS, AD doesn't hold a flicker of a candle to Novell, security and stability that simply can't be touched by MS.

I also feel that Novell is FAR better at managing a mixed environment and MS is severely limited in that respect. So for the management, security PKI etc. I would go with Novell, even for mail GroupWise is light years ahead of Exchange.

But for custom apps etc. MS is APPRENTLY a beter choice, though I have yet to see Novell's limitations in that respect either.

This discussion is closed to new replies.