We gave SunWorld Online readers the chance to comment in essay form on their thoughts and experiences with Windows NT, and many seized that opportunity.
Click on our Sponsors to help Support SunWorld
The comments are reproduced as received; only some minor spelling and punctuation errors have been corrected. -- Editors
Topic: Tell us what you think about a Windows NT
- Date: Fri Mar 1 08:33:34 PST 1996
Often frustrating to administer, but a great platform for photoshop.
Date: Fri Mar 1 08:08:32 PST 1996
I have had mixed results with NT. I find that it works well for technical
users as a general-purpose workstation, but the lack of _REAL_ support for
16-bit apps dooms it our platform of choice for typical end-users. The 16-
bit apps tend to crash quite regularly, just like in Windows 3.1x. The
only difference is that you have to log out and log back in instead of
rebooting the server. We have also had a few instances of NT users
inadvertently opening up their entire server to access because they
clicked the wrong box. :( NT does have some pretty useful purposes,
though. I currently
Date: Fri Mar 1 11:19:23 PST 1996
We have implemented NT as part of an Automated Sales Force project. NT
servers in each remote Sales office contain replicated Lotus Notes
databases and custom applications. NT was chose becuase of the ease of
integration with the Windows/95 laptops that each salesperson will
receive. Personally I find NT easy to use but one very weak area is remote
server management. A lot of the tools must be run at the console, although
I've heard that Microsoft's SMS product will address that in a future
Date: Fri Mar 1 11:37:05 PST 1996
As an Integration firm the company I work for has decided to purchase an
NT server with the concept of developing expertise on the system in order
to be able to sell and integrate it. My experiences with NT have thus far
been minimul, however I have been unimpressed with what I have seen so
Date: Fri Mar 1 12:19:22 PST 1996
About to evaluate it as Microsoft Exchange Server...
Date: Fri Mar 1 13:06:24 PST 1996
It is pointy-clicky. it lacks full Unix functionality, but to idiot
purchasing manager, its the pointy-clicky that matters, so we will be
purchasing more of them. NT is the final wave (and really still a FUTURE)
wave of the evil empire to totally dominate all desktop computing. (and to
a great extent, server computing) The bad news is, its looking like it
will succeed. There is no good news.
Date: Fri Mar 1 13:24:45 PST 1996
NT is being used/evaluated in my department (Integration Services). It's
been pretty easy to use, but not terribly easy to learn. Although it's
primarily a GUI-driven OS, it is still quite complex to learn from a
sysadmin perspective. The integration features seem very good, with the
exception of no NFS and no ability to print to Unix systems which are NOT
Date: Fri Mar 1 19:38:38 PST 1996
A real kludge. NT represents what I like least about computing - lowest
common denominator schlock that pretends to be something more than it is
and gets away with it due to market ignorance. Troublesome in that it is
unstable and expensive since you must buy monolithic apps to do the chores
of shell scripts. Inflexible and clunky.
Date: Fri Mar 1 17:10:00 PST 1996
There are two groups: NT devotees and NT haters, so the religious wars are
kept inside our company. People accustomed with Unix are suprised mainly
with fatness and unstability of NT and NT applications, but the NT people
are optimistic about the awaited new versions and there is very strong
customers demand for NT.
Date: Fri Mar 1 22:48:37 PST 1996
It's been easy to set up compared to Unix, about the same as Novell.
Date: Fri Mar 1 23:04:39 PST 1996
Windows NT is easier to use than character based systems. NT running
Windows 95 will be a good combination. It has been received well at our
job site. Also the Windows machines a lot cheaper than Unix boxes. But for
mission critical & Internet applications i feel Solaris 2.4 or greater
would be a good try. But future alone will decide this.
Date: Sat Mar 2 03:29:40 PST 1996
It looked nice, but I've seen it unrecoverable after a powerfailure. It's
a @#$%@#$% to connect printers to print to/from it from/to Solaris/Unix
boxes because of printer filters etc.
Date: Sat Mar 2 08:52:55 PST 1996
Current usage largely limited to server for Microsoft SQL Servers. Will be
testing NT Workstation connectivity to both NT and Novell file servers for
deployment to end-user desktops, with such deployment to start as early as
May, 1996. Reason for NT on desktop is to provide access to larger amounts
of memory, to stabilize the desktop and reduce crashes, and to take
advantage of better multi-tasking. NT will be relatively easy to learn, by
far, compared to Unix, for users and sysadmins. It is well-received and in
demand in our shop
Date: Sat Mar 2 09:00:11 PST 1996
Using NT and Win/Win95 as desktop systems from the beginning. Same with NT
Date: Sat Mar 2 09:09:34 PST 1996
Very easy to use, adminster, and integrate.
Date: Sat Mar 2 09:37:58 PST 1996
nt, despite the fact that it will rule, at some level of configuration and
tuning becomes just as terse as Unix but has no tools (regedit). Good luck
Date: Sat Mar 2 10:12:25 PST 1996
We ship our products on SunOS 4.X, Solaris 2.X, MacOS 7.5, Win XX and NT.
The marketing that NT is Posix compliant is a lie!
Date: Sat Mar 2 10:30:29 PST 1996
I simply don't allow it.
Date: Sat Mar 2 10:51:46 PST 1996
NT is easy to setup! Within 25 minutes I can have an NT server up and
running, a web server running, a ftp server running, and even a small
database package. It's really easy to work with... The only other
Unix/Linux OS I know that is this easy is Caldera. NT and Multiproccessor
systems (quad pentium pros) are the way to go if you not set on SPARCs.
Date: Sat Mar 2 10:58:22 PST 1996
We've been using NT Workstation as a desktop OS on all of our new Pentium
systems. I particularly enjoy its ease of use and administration combined
with its performance, crash resistance, security, and ability to run MS
Windows apps. In fact, I've had great results running NT (currently the
4.0 beta with the Win95 shell) on my 486 at home, which has 24MB of RAM. I
would rather upgrade the RAM on older PC's so that they can run NT than
worry about the instability and 16-bit DOS foundation of Windows 95. I
have much less experien
Date: Sat Mar 2 11:09:42 PST 1996
we tried NT at our department and they SUCK HARD.
Date: Sat Mar 2 11:10:51 PST 1996
NT is fairly easy to learn, but is still a very immature product. It lacks
the flexibility and power of Unix, and tries too hard to shield the user
from the guts of the OS. So in the event that something goes wrong with
your NT server, more often than not, it is extremely hard to find out
what. A distributed display environment (or similar) that Microsoft
supports is also badly needed for NT.
Date: Sat Mar 2 13:02:17 PST 1996
Not used very mutch for the moment. We had a choise for Sysbase severs and
that was between NT and SPARC Solaris. The choise was SPARC Solaris.
Date: Sat Mar 2 13:27:59 PST 1996
Don't quite know what its good for yet.
Date: Sat Mar 2 13:29:57 PST 1996
In general, experience with NT has been very good. It appears to be Very
stable robust and easy to use. Performance-wise better than Unix in file
and print serving. I think Sun should position Solaris for Intel (and/or
for PowerPC) as a direct competition for NT (both server and workstation)
-- IMHO at the moment it is not (more expensive, less advertised). We are
using NT on Intel (wkstation & server), and Solaris 2.x on both SPARC and
Intel. On Intel I end up using NT more than Solaris simply because there
are more applications and connectivity tools.
Date: Sat Mar 2 15:00:12 PST 1996
Very inexpensive! Easy to set-up. However, not all that powerfull! Easy to
integrate with DOS machines, and easy to learn!
Date: Sat Mar 2 15:55:04 PST 1996
1. We find that NT is suitable for small to moderate databases (< 15 GB).
2. NT is easy to administer and has good remote access capabilities. 3. NT
is not yet mature and a number of vendors don't support it as well as they
do Unix. 4. NT is a superior desktop operating system require less overall
support from the technical staff than other Windows products (or Unix for
that matter.) 5. NT will replace OS/2 as a departmental server. Pricing
and features will determ
Date: Sat Mar 2 18:52:44 PST 1996
NT is stable, easy to learn and administer, and very compatible with DOS
and 16-bit Windows apps. My experiences are very positive. With NT gaining
lots of support, and NT-capable hardware being inexpensive, Unix had
better watch out.
Date: Sat Mar 2 19:35:28 PST 1996
Not pleasant. We use NT server v3.5 as a print server and a MS Office
application server. It serves a network of four Windows for Workgroups
workstations. Our experiences with it have not been pleasant. It is hard
to learn. It crashes on a weekly basis. Since our technical support
license agreement has expired we also have no where to go for support.
Yes, there's always the Internet but finding support for NT on the
Internet isn't easy. Now contrast this with Solaris. While Solaris can
also be hard to learn, it is a stable OS. In the past four months, we've
only had to reboot once. Also, the online docum
Date: Sun Mar 3 04:57:57 PST 1996
no experience yet
Date: Sun Mar 3 09:16:44 PST 1996
I have found NT easy to use and packed with several useful extras (like
multiprotocol server ). I donīt like the fact than NT is a resource hog:
You need a really powerful hardaware ( many memory ) to use it even like a
Desktop. I think than Unix vendors most be warned and make to Unix more
easier to use and more open to other netowrk protocols line Netware and
Date: Sun Mar 3 10:51:56 PST 1996
Porting our software to the Win32 environment was fairly straightforward.
Customer demand is high. (We are a software company. We do not use NT for
internal systems but we ship our product on NT as well as several flavors
Date: Sun Mar 3 11:37:55 PST 1996
I hate to admit it ... NT is a pretty decent operating system. Programming
on it is very easy (Visual C++ 4.0). The biggest advantage that I see is
that sharing information is very easy and can be controlled by the
Date: Sun Mar 3 13:55:37 PST 1996
NT has been evaluated in a beta version. We are planning to go to it to
bring Intel and Alpha systems into a common networkk and operation.
Date: Sun Mar 3 15:31:27 PST 1996
Great OS but somewhat difficult to get/provide support.
Date: Sun Mar 3 17:55:24 PST 1996
It's been mixed. For non-techies, its been easy to pick up if they have
had Win3.x experience -- much less intimidating than Unix shell prompts.
It seems to take more "horsepower" for NT to handle a given amount of work
than Novell or Unix. I don't have numbers to back it up but I'd guess that
both Novell and Unix would take less of a CPU to, say, saturate an Ethernet.
Date: Sun Mar 3 20:18:27 PST 1996
I personally consider NT limited relative to *ix, but easier for a
relative novice to set up. I feel it's had a strong marketing campaign,
with relatively little effort put into its development. Locally,
management appears to have decided to develop NT abilities in staff - not
out of a view that NT is better suited to server roles than *ix, but
because it's sick of fighting users who desparately want to see us go with
Microsoft products. I fear that Microsoft will find it easier to make
advances for itself, because of its relative lack of concern with
standards - and its relatively large installed base.
Date: Sun Mar 3 20:20:25 PST 1996
NT has been well-received in our organization. We also use NT as a Gateway
to NetWare. No problems with NT configuration.
Date: Sun Mar 3 22:17:54 PST 1996
With Samba NT is easy to intergrate with Unix. Easy to learn the basic,
but some the setup for advance features is poorly documented. We have
found NT to be a great replacement for File/Print servers for out old NFS
servers only for PC Clients. Windows based clients dictated the use of NT
in our company. Unix is only application and development we use.
Date: Sun Mar 3 23:53:12 PST 1996
NT is difficult to use mostly because of the weak UI. However, that will
be changing soon. We only use NT for custom application development. If
Unix at least had a consistent UI across different versions, it would be
more appealing for this use.
Date: Mon Mar 4 00:08:01 PST 1996
Stable, great Network interface. Runs Win applications. Good security.
Date: Mon Mar 4 02:42:16 PST 1996
NT is just a lot of hype, but it works fine for the desktop. Real servers
for critical applications are and will be Unix-based. Bill Gates is
getting too big!
Date: Mon Mar 4 13:42:26 MET 1996
There currently is a big push towards NT. A few major reasons are, * Price
/ Performance for database servers (i.e., Solaris/Sybase vs NT/MicroSoft SQL
Server) * Institutional Workstation Support (Centralized Control & Support
Date: Mon Mar 4 04:47:17 PST 1996
We installed it a month ago to run our new engineering data vault. It was
easy to install and integrate into our existing network. .. I still prefer
Unix Maybe the next Rev of NT will change this view. We are still
Date: Mon Mar 4 04:54:14 PST 1996
People who are "somewhat" technical like NT because it looks like Windows.
They can fire it up and use programs written for it. They don't have to
learn anything new. However, I am a programmer and want to begin learning
a bit about NT since the market will eventually drive NT to the desktop
(and perhaps take over the server).
Date: Mon Mar 4 05:20:01 PST 1996
Well received by technical support, application developers and end users.
It's a breeze to integrate compared to competition. Formal training is
required, but it is not difficult to learn. All Novell users and systems
personnel are clamoring to get to NT.
Date: Mon Mar 4 05:43:50 PST 1996
There are many ex-Novell employees who recognize and espouse the benefits
of NT over Netware. We are still young in the Unix world, but we can
recognize its usefulness. We, however, prefer to develop less complex
solutions for our customers, and Unix, to date, defines the antithesis of
complex. NT is the answer. Also, for those folks, like myself, who need a
bit more *oomph* for their Intel PC's, NT may be the answer. NT, so far,
has been easy to work on, find support for, and integrate with other
Date: Mon Mar 4 05:46:23 PST 1996
I travel a lot for my company and therefore use a laptop which I plug into
a docking station when in the home office. I use the multiple boot option
under DOS to configure my environment based upon the I am visiting. I have
recently experimented with Windows NT on my IBM 755C laptop. 1. The is no
real multi-boot option (I can find) so that I can have a system which
adapts to its environment. 2. I loaded the NT OS through my docked
enviroment with an extrenal monitor and keyboard. When I removed the
machine from the docking station and rebooted, the integrated numeric
keypad is locked on.
Date: Mon Mar 4 06:08:30 PST 1996
NT: Easy to lern! NT: C:>\ (Do I need to say anymore :-) SunOS x.x : I sit
in my room an administrating the whole site! Win Nice Try: I spend time
that I don't have running around with a pack of CD's... When you install
something on a network drive, the product often wants to write something
to your C:. Then later you install a new PC, this time with 2 HD's and you
have NT on D: this time. At this moment you discover that you can't use
the installed version on the net because it points to C: on some older
machine. Thank you MS! / Erik
Date: Mon Mar 4 06:35:46 PST 1996
We are using Unix for all our database servers. Windows and 95 for Offfice
suites and NT and Novell for file servers. When Microsoft integrates the
ease of from Windows 95, NT will become a very powerful OS. For now the
learing curve between NT and Solaris is about the same. NT 3.5 is less
stable than Solaris 2.5
Date: Mon Mar 4 06:48:09 PST 1996
We are the technical department of a research institute. NT is brought
into our computing infrastructure by the demand of projects developing
applications with frontends for Windows 95/NT. So in some of our projects
NT is used as 1. controller for Windows 95 development stations 2. as
development platform itself. To straight out the control over the
momentary multiple domains set up during the last year, we will ourself
set up 1. an institute-wide domain controller 2. use NT as a file server
for those projects and some Windows 3.x/95/NT workstations used by our
Date: Mon Mar 4 07:15:16 PST 1996
NT is adequate as a file server. As a desktop O/S it still has a way to
go. Microsoft's idea of making NT better is to throw more hardware at it.
I have a version of Linux that runs rings around NT -- while still
providing the same functionality. I think NT is an easy choice for many,
because it doesn't require a lot of knowledge for the "generic" setup.
Mostly just point and click and you are done. However, once you start
getting into the nitty-gritty for a full-scale installation, then you
really have to know what you are doing.
Date: Mon Mar 4 07:18:12 PST 1996
NT is easy to learn if you are already familiar with Windows. It works
fine for small jobs but does not appear to be scalable to large
Date: Mon Mar 4 07:48:25 PST 1996
Easy to use, plug and play, well-received at my site, easy to integrate
Date: Mon Mar 4 08:28:18 PST 1996
NT has proven itself as an easy to install and maintain network server and
a powerful development environment. NT is easy to use, easy to integrate
and very well received. There needs to be more shrink-wrapped apps that
take advantage of the multi-thread capability and exploit the performance
capability of NT.
Date: Mon Mar 4 08:44:21 PST 1996
We are using NT to serve Windows/Windows95 desktop machines in offices and
a lab of NT workstations. Most of the users don't notice the difference
between Windows and Windows NT. NT is not easy to use. It has numerous
shortcommings as an easily managed server. Many utilities that should be
standard, have to be purchased from a third party. Utilities such as a
Date: Mon Mar 4 08:47:30 PST 1996
We have no experience. The message seems to be "just do it". This is
because no other supplier is dominating the end-user & departmental
market. There are too many confusing/conflicting stories about Unix to
make it the preferred long term choice. Microsoft is still the dominent
supplier of Windows based OS in the commercial world for end-users. It is
the end-user that will force the decision to use NT as the local server
OS. This will be done by arguing that support costs will be lower. This
position will only change if MS gets significantly bad NT press.
Date: Mon Mar 4 09:08:54 PST 1996
Works great, easy to use for endusers used with DOS/Windows. System
administration is much easier to learn then in Unix. NT 3.51 misses ascii-
based programs for system administration. I hate DOS bat-programming, they
need perl or some other language as a standard utility with the OS. With
the coming utilities based on SMS it will be possible for a small group to
manage system administration for a big site with many NT workstation
Date: Mon Mar 4 09:18:05 PST 1996
Yes. NT strenghts are * Integrated Application Suite. * User Friendly
Interface. * Cheap Price.
Date: Mon Mar 4 10:03:06 PST 1996
I haven't been exposed to NT yet and I'm not aware of any pro's or con's
within our organization.
Date: Mon Mar 4 10:51:46 PST 1996
NT is used as a PC file server. We also use it as a Windows on Unix
product, using WinDD from Tektronix. I have found that it is not as easy
to administer as the Microsoft devotees would like one to think.
Date: Mon Mar 4 11:40:25 PST 1996
- NT is very well received among users who were using Win31 machines These
are users who are using applications like spreadsheets, word processors,
- NT is not as well received among programmers and technical users.
However, all these users are longtime Unix users
- The main strength of NT
(and Microsoft OSes) in general over Unix is their concentration on the
user interface. The GUI interfaces on Unix stink. The main strength of
Unix is that it is more open, has been around much longer and thus is more
Date: Mon Mar 4 12:05:23 PST 1996
Difficult to install, impossible to reconfigure. Fairly easy to use as a
desktop system, much more complex as a server.
Date: Mon Mar 4 12:44:21 PST 1996
I am _NOT_ a member of the campus Info.Sys.; nor do they allow me to
attend their planning/oversite meetings. I do hear from them. IS has an NT
3.51 server running -for IS access only. NT servers will replace the 15
BANYAN/VINES servers eventually. They also have a 5-user Novell 4.1 which
is being used by a single lab here in the hospital. They definitely have
chosen NT over Novell and Banyan. They are not yet comfortable with NT
management. They will have a long delay writting the cutom login etc and
migration of installed apps.
Date: Mon Mar 4 13:51:13 PST 1996
Given Microsoft's aggressive pricing and NT's features, I'm learning it.
Date: Mon Mar 4 14:13:56 PST 1996
Well received but doubts about it's current ability to replace primary
corporate servers (NetWare). Perhaps NT 4.0 will change that... Platform
of choice for development
Date: Mon Mar 4 14:19:21 PST 1996
The greatest pain has been dealing with the network dependencies when
using a NFS and all of the related password issues. For example, in order
for me to be able to mount an NFS drive on my NT computer, I need to have
the same password on my NT computer, my Unix computer and the Unix
computer I am using as authentication server. NT is also very
susceptable(sp) to the slightest flaw in the hardware it is running on. A
number of computers running NT repeatedly crashed.
Date: Mon Mar 4 14:25:47 PST 1996
Moderately well recieved. Bad security holes and many , many hardware
compatibility/driver problems. Limited software avaliable. Some
reliability problems. No support form Microsoft.
Date: Mon Mar 4 14:58:15 PST 1996
We are currently evaluating NT for Dept. servers and some power users
workstations. So far NT has been very satisfied in terms of steability.
However, it requires too much memory as an workstaion not like win95 and
Date: Mon Mar 4 15:10:06 PST 1996
Windows NT is a fairly tight server package. Our company is currently
using a Windows NT based server solely as a database server with
intentions of an Internet server in the near future. One of the largest
considerations when deciding on NT was the price of the hardware and
software required to run a usable system. If I had the choice, I would've
opted for a Unix (either Intel- or Sun-based).
Date: Mon Mar 4 16:09:08 PST 1996
NT web servers at Microsoft appear to be slow.
Date: Mon Mar 4 20:38:10 PST 1996
We use NT as out Notes server platform and a couple of other little
things. Our Novell people think that it will eventually mature and replace
Netware. Our Unix people think that it will replace Unix to a large
degree, and our users think that we're idiots for not using it now. I
think that in 3-5 years it will be the dominant NOS but I still hate
Date: Tue Mar 5 00:23:52 PST 1996
NT has a fine GUI that covers all of the bugs that reside in the Kernel.
It makes NT look very powerful next to Unix, as everything that the
operating system offers could easily be found by the point-and-click
method rather than reading through a pile of books. The above approach
works fine with inexperienced system administrator, but fails with the
developers. Microsoft boast that NT is the latest technology, when we know
that the technology has been around for decades. I think NT is easy to
use, but rather limited in its tasks, especially since Microsoft tend not
to comply with the RFC's. It is like
Date: Tue Mar 5 01:40:05 PST 1996
Mixed, but getting easier and less expensive to run all the time.
Date: Tue Mar 5 05:20:12 PST 1996
We have a couple of projects on the go that are using NT. It has been a
bit of a nuisance integrating it with our Solaris machines. We see it
simply as a better Windows client. 32 bit, multitasking. We have not yet
been able to see any advantage as a server. Our Solaris machines are much
more flexible, and a lot more economical. It seems everyone in the Windows
world, when they hear "server" thinks only of what I would call a file
server, not a compute server. NT does not seem to be able to support 15-20
or more users logged on to it to work at their job.
Date: Tue Mar 5 05:31:51 PST 1996
Fairly good feelings, but too resource hungry. It's easier to manage than
Novell & Unix (for low level users) On the downside the registry is too
cumbersone and very very poor scripting capabilities
Date: Tue Mar 5 06:12:11 PST 1996
I've just tried 3.5 as a Web server (on august/95), but gave up to Solaris
X.86. I intend to try NT as a file server to PCs running Windows in
replacement to PC/NFS on Solaris X.86.
Date: Tue Mar 5 06:55:34 PST 1996
Much more useable and mature than Win95
Date: Tue Mar 5 11:38:13 PST 1996
NT simply works. It is not as scaleable (yet) or robust (yet) as Unix, but
it is damn close. It requires far less system administration and support
than Unix, so it is much less expensive than Unix, not only to purchase
but to support. Our users all know Windows 3.1, so they have moved with
incredible ease to NT. Even our Unix programmers use NT as their primary
"general purpose" (e-mail, word processing, Lotus Notes) desktop.
Date: Tue Mar 5 12:52:09 PST 1996
NT 3.51 has been a stable network operating system for us. We have moved
from Novell to NT because the cost per connection is substantially cheaper
and the knowledge based needed to effectivily administer the system is
much less. NT verse Unix, on the desktop, brings a much cheaper and more
extensive set of tools. IT's very simple to attach to tcp or SPX under NT,
this makes it a nice pivot point for moving files between OS's.
Date: Tue Mar 5 14:14:29 PST 1996
NT (as an option) is being requested by more and more customers. It may
also have some applicability to us as a desktop OS running personal
productivity apps and x-server software to allow connectivity to our Unix
workstations and servers.
Date: Tue Mar 5 14:31:18 PST 1996
Too many things are hidden by Microsoft such that when an error occurs it
is harder to figure out what's wrong with NT.
Date: Tue Mar 5 14:36:38 PST 1996
NT is well-received. It is somewhat easier to use than Unix, at the start.
However, more complex tasks frequently become more difficult with NT, once
one gets past the capabilities of the basic GUI admin interface of NT. NT
is easy to integrate, so long as you only integrate it with Microsoft
products. It is, however, easier to integrate into NetWare environments
than Unix - even including UnixWare (R.I.P.)
Date: Tue Mar 5 15:32:28 PST 1996
In our lab, we run a small (7 Intel workstations) peer-to-peer NT network,
within a much larger networked environment dominated by Sun and DEC
workstations. These machines are used for a diverse mix of purposes
ranging from C/C++ development for engineering caclulations and data
acquisition, to running shrink-wrap applications such as Word, Excel, and
Mathcad. One machine functions as the lab web server, running the EMWAC
HTTPS on NT Server 3.51. Our experience: - NT is very easy to manage,
probably easier than Unix for a technical professional who is not a full-
time system manager. - NT is very robust. T
Date: Tue Mar 5 20:18:14 PST 1996
Excellent solution for Novell shops or greenfield installations. Also
great for former IBM AS/400 captives. Easy to Learn & Teach basics
Customer self sufficiency is greatly enhanced. In high demand by corporate
middle class Market driven by Microsoft Office.
Date: Tue Mar 5 21:11:39 PST 1996
good as a desktop environment, clunky as a server, ok as an application
Date: Tue Mar 5 21:37:50 PST 1996
Some local boneheads seem to think that NT is Great And Wonderful(tm)
without even realizing that we Unix hacks have been using the Cool New
Features(tm) since the early 1980s. I refuse to use it (or any other
MicroSnot operating system) for ethical reasons :-)
Date: Wed Mar 6 01:46:05 PST 1996
avoiding so far...I'll wait until the hype settles down and when there is
an overwhelming advantage that only NT provides. How much of the marketing
hype will result in a self fulfilling prophecy? (OK, thats what marketing
is all about...but still.) The one thing I like about W/NT is the
consolidating effect it has had on the Unix vendors.
Date: Wed Mar 6 06:03:44 PST 1996
Currently I'm not impressed by the scalabilty, in performance terms of NT,
as we have experiance, in a realtime enviroment, performance issues
(losing updates, slow response etc). The only really effects our power
users, but these are the people who would usually use Unix. NT really
needs to get to grips with its processor scheduling if it is to replace
Unix boxes, or remove its reliance on Intel's x86 arch (Open NT?). Front
end is great and easy to use, but as I have said, you are limited it what
you can do. I do like to flexible approch of Unix%
Date: Wed Mar 6 06:16:36 PST 1996
The PC folks here are beginning to investigate and use NT. I use it at
home (just recently). It is obscure to a Unix user.
Date: Wed Mar 6 07:04:51 PST 1996
I am currently running nt side by side with Linux w/ X because I can't get
root on the production systems(Solaris 2.5). I think nt is fantastic,
kinda sucks because I would have liked writing an os like it. I think the
95 shell is garbage though. Yet, better than Windows in some ways. I think
Unix is fantastic a command line os will always have a place in any
serious programmer/sys admins life but MS will probably write up a Unix
interface to NT.
Date: Wed Mar 6 19:45:39 PST 1996
NT Sucks. Feel free to quote me on that. NT is an excellent example of a
downward spiral in the computer industry. Microsoft does well in the
desktop environment (who hasn't seen Windows 3.1?) and therefore gains
acceptance by the desktop user. Unix looks different, and NT "does the
same thing". Microsoft has the name association advantage that IBM had in
the mid to late 70's. The losers here are the application programmers who
have to support two different code sets because Microsoft gives only face
value to the POSIX standards that make Unix ports so easy.
Date: Thu Mar 7 06:18:27 PST 1996
We will not use NT until Microsoft forces us (like Windows 95 versions
replacing Windows3.1 versions of MS Office forcing a switch to Windows 95)
Date: Thu Mar 7 05:20:00 PST 1996
Installation nothing short of a nightmare.
Date: Thu Mar 7 05:08:49 PST 1996
NT is used on a PC to run a daemon. It is only used at one site. While it
is like Windows in appearence, it is very different underneath and seems
to quite difficult to deal with.
Date: Thu Mar 7 08:27:46 PST 1996
Right now, NT server software is targeting Novell. NT comes with more, and
integrates better with Unix. It can route over IP instead of IPX, giving
you only one protocol to mess with on your routers. I can see small shops
going all NT (desktop and server) to simplfy their lives. I can see large
shops turning to NT from Novell because of cost. Microsoft owns the lion's
share of the PC market and they have slotted Windows 95 to supplant
Windows 3.x. In order to put a "Windows 95 compliant" sticker on your box,
your software must run under Windows NT as well, or else MS won't let you
put the sticker on. What this says to me is, Windows 95 is simply a
vehicle being used to ween people off of Windows 3.x and that MS will drop
Win95 like a rock when enough of the market is off of 3.x. All they have
to do is stop selling Win95. The market will be left to buy NT or nothing,
and all the Win95 applications will run under NT, so they will have no
reason not to. Why bother with Windows 95, skip right to NT; that's where
Microsoft is going to push you anyway. Most Unix vendors are already
targeting Mainframes and are barely even fighting PCs encroaching onto the
"low end" of their turf. The Unix that survives will be the Unix that
meshes well with NT. I would much rather support standards, like X-
Windows, NFS, Telnet, and FTP than I would support a company that I
consider a monopoly.
Date: Thu Mar 7 10:56:40 PST 1996
NT application servers are not as stable as our Solaris 2.3 file and
application servers. We have a very large deployment of server & client.
It is currently up to 20 domestic and international sites. Most are
Compaq, SPARC 20 and SPARC 1000 & SPARC 2000. There are more and more
talks of replacing Solaris servers with NT servers. Since most of our
desktops and workstations are Windows/Win95, as the result, I am seing a
larger user (engineers & customers) base who are in fravior of
implementing NT servers. My experiences so far is that the marriage
between Solaris and Windows is a very difficult road.
Date: Thu Mar 7 12:08:00 PST 1996
NT is fine for the desktop and LAN environments, but it is a VERY weak
product for the WAN and internet environments !!! Here is a partial list
administration is extremely difficult if not impossible
And the list just keeps going on and on....
- No SMTP or POP
internet mail support
- No DNS name server support (as of this moment)
Have to reboot after almost every little configuration change
- No telnet
- No snmp client
- rcp/rcmd can only be initiated from NT.
- No UUCP
- very weak command shell (it only supports dos commands plus a few
Date: Thu Mar 7 13:13:04 PST 1996
Exposure to NT is limited to a few people at our site. One manager is
pushing very hard to replace Novell servers with NT servers.
Administration and security seems to be much simpler with NT than with
with Novell. The GUI interface seems to shorten the learning curve,
however overall maintenance and production capabilities are yet to be
Date: Thu Mar 7 18:13:09 PST 1996
Haven't gotten around to really poking it yet.
Date: Thu Mar 7 22:43:25 PST 1996
NT has not been well received at our site. We are probably going to start
evaluating the RISC Server next month.
Date: Fri Mar 8 03:05:49 PST 1996
Easy to install and use, but missing a lot of tools I have come to rely on
on Unix Boxes
Date: Fri Mar 8 10:04:18 PST 1996
NT is an ecxellent product. Very easey to use compare to Unix systems.
Easy to learn, especially for someone who has Windows background.
Date: Fri Mar 8 17:57:32 PST 1996
NT has been selected for our sever and development platform. This is a
Windows shop which have used Sun servers in the past. Many people don't
like Unix (Mostly from a poorly integrated system) so find NT just like
Windows with more features.
Date: Fri Mar 8 20:24:58 PST 1996
NT is a good replacement for Windows 3.1 on the desktop, so long as you
have all the NT drivers you require. NT on the server is easy to set up,
and fairly reliable. The downfalls of NT are Microsoft's reluctance to
support NT as a production, mission critical OS. Although that is not as
important on the desktop side, it is vital to the server side of the
house. In addition, NT is missing the customization that Unix allows, and
other Unix-like features such as X Window System. X Window System is vital to remote-
administration and help-desks. It also provides the user the ability to
run programs where they are best suited, such as a bandwidth hungry GIS
application nearest the server, not across an entire LAN, or WAN. I would
like to see a fully object oriented OS, that allows the feature
customization of Unix (i.e., the ability to use the modules that you
prefer), without the overhead of the legacy, text-file based, cryptic-
coded administration that goes with Unix. In short, NT is too simple-
minded, and Unix is too complex. A middle ground needs to be obtained.
Date: Sat Mar 9 19:35:36 PST 1996
The easy things are very easy. But when it comes to problems or trying to
really get into performance tuning forget it. It is closed and no one is
talking about the problems.
Date: Sat Mar 9 20:30:09 PST 1996
NT is being eveluated within our department as a desktop/fileserver/
printserver. As far as these tasks go, it seems to perform adequately. The
main complaint as a fileserver is that it DOES NOT do NFS.This is a real
pain when integrating it into a Unix environment. I find it to be a memory
hog. Our Sun classic file and print serves 30 PCs adequately with only
24MB RAM, while NT struggles unless it has 32. Lack of a good SMTP
component (bundled) makes it fairly useless as an internet mail server. I
fundamentally don't buy the concept as NT, except as a high end desktop
machine. A "server" shouldn't be wasting its time running a graphics based
console, and administrators HATE not being able to do "quick fixes" with a
script, or shell based utility. Microsoft assumes that they have thought
of (and provided an appropriate button for) every single thing one could
possible do on its server. In summary, NT as a server: why graphics?, No
NFS or SMTP. NT as a desktop: superior to win95
Date: Sat Mar 9 20:44:15 PST 1996
Department supports engineering users. Engineering users tend to look at
initial acquisition costs. INTEL RULES on this basis unless RISC
processors have substantial performance advantage. NT gives INTEL big
assist in this area by providing OS that multitasks and exploits
PentiumPRO horsepower. NT is very well received at our site. Most MIS
people are assuming that it will be the logical client/server choice for
the future. For the client side, MS Windows (and NT) provide all the cheap
productivity tools (Word, Excel, GroupWise) that any office worker could
want plus the GUI is widely known. Many technical users have PC's at home.
On server side, strengths are less obvious, but people tend to pick it
because of high comfort level with MS Windows clients. Unless the facts
make it ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS that it is the wrong choice, it gets the nod. I
installed NT on my PC and have to say that as a client system, I like it a
lot better than the DOS/Windows world. The integrated IP support was very
nice. It was vary easy to install application software and it seemed to
run pretty well. As a server, file sharing was pretty easy. The mechanism
for establishing and managing user profiles was obtuse. In addition, some
of the security mechanisms were somewhat primitive (like no obvious way to
change file ownership). At this point, I'd have to say that Unix is
perceived as difficult to learn and use.
Date: Sat Mar 9 23:52:48 PST 1996
NT has work very well for us. NT is very well designed in very aspect
(except the stupid drive letters limitation) The world need a new, robust
OS. NT, IMHO, is it. I am sick of dealing with all these slightly
different, "open" Unix's. And this is adminstering and using them. I am
even sicker about all those high priced, stone age development tools.
Date: Sun Mar 10 06:57:23 PST 1996
In the fewest words, the users are sold (marketing bs helps) technical
staff (The dosians) love it, (The Novellians) are mixed, and (The
Unixians) say "where's the beef. Notwithstanding the personal biases, NT
will more than likely take over the PC LAN server market. It will hurt
mostly Novell, Banyan etc. Sun can prevent an erosion of their low end
market by providing a very simple.
Date: Sun Mar 10 13:54:37 PST 1996
NT is the best on reliability price performance, Unix is to expensive for
the Desktop or small Servers.
Date: Mon Mar 11 08:22:34 PST 1996
NT is currently not being received very well. Most of the objections
relate to the lack of a Win95 interface and the difficulty in obtaining
drivers. We are currently looking at the NT4.0 release as a solution for
the first objection. The second is going to simply take time. There are
several additional problem areas that we see. First NT does not support a
rooted file system. This limites the number of mount points and makes it
difficult for users to access data on many different drives. This comes
from the designers VMS bias and is unfortunate in our view point. Second,
the lack of softlinks makes support much more difficult than it shoud be.
Third, the inability to su to become another user and still use the
standard tools is a problem. This drastically slows down problem solving
since I can't be logged in as 2 users at the same time. Fourth, the
dependance of the system on netbios is unfortunate since it limits the
ways that we can deploy remote machine across routers. I understand that
this will be fixed in a fucutre release, but it can't come soon enough.
Lastly, NT is still a single user system. Until the standard desktop
becomes multiuser, it will be very difficult to integrate into an
enviroment where CPU sharing is a standard procedure.
Date: Mon Mar 11 09:43:47 PST 1996
Still some concerns about scalability. We're using Windows NT with SQL
Server. It's been fairly easy to learn and has integrated into our NetWare
Date: Mon Mar 11 09:49:42 PST 1996
We use NT in our imaging lab for its greater speed at running Windows 3.x
software such as Adobe Photoshop. This setup is about 1 year old and has
worked well. The only exits from NT to DOS/Windows is due to lack of
specific drivers for specialized hardware.
Date: Mon Mar 11 17:25:48 PST 1996
Needs a lot of resources. Does not scale well.
Date: Mon Mar 11 20:49:49 PST 1996
NT is easy to use. I use NT as a file server.Because it is very east to
use from File Manager on Windows-NT(Workstation) and Windows95. But we
can't log on to NT-Server like telnet/rlogin. Most of Client PC is not so
powerfull machine. Then we sometimes would like to use NT-Server's
Powerfull CPU. But we can't. we user NT server as a just file server.
Date: Mon Mar 11 23:41:38 PST 1996
No experience with NT.
Date: Tue Mar 12 06:46:53 PST 1996
We have beta copies that we have been playing with. There has been NO
specific requests for NT at all from our customer base. Our customer base
is primarily mainframe oriented.
Date: Tue Mar 12 06:51:59 PST 1996
We're just now attempting to implement NT. We view it as a necessary
bridge between our Unix environment and the software other agencies (we're
the federal government) have written for our use, but not for Unix. It's
not necessarily harder, just different.
Date: Tue Mar 12 08:12:51 PST 1996
Date: Tue Mar 12 09:52:58 PST 1996
NT is still based on NETBIOS which means that it must be force-fit to work
as an enterprise wide network. "Force-fit" means that many operations
depend upon WINS to translate NETBIOS names into IP addresses. NT is far
less flexible than Unix. (At least former Unix implementations.) The
sysadmin cannot as easily write scripts or C programs to make his/her life
easier. These functions typically must be bought from third party vendors.
NT seems to be much less expensive to own and operate than Unix. This is
true in hardware, software, administration time, and user effort. NT
workstation (on the INTEL platform) allows a user to do both resource
intensive work (CAD, simulations, etc.) and regular PC productivity work
on one machine. This can be much less expensive than having both Unix and
PC computers. Especially since the user must only learn one operating
system. NT comes with enough glue (TCP/IP, IPX, NETBEUI, Netware, etc.) to
fit into almost any existing network. Once there, its user popularity will
determine if it becomes dominant or not. If Mr. Gates would provide native
TCP/IP networking and NFS support, I would recommend it to everyone for
Date: Tue Mar 12 10:54:57 PST 1996
Date: Tue Mar 12 23:41:04 PST 1996
Though integrating our Macintoshes with NT Server has been discussed, we
trust Sun products over Microsoft products anyday. We do wish Apple had
chosen a Sun OS for its Network Servers.
Date: Wed Mar 13 13:30:01 PST 1996
They simply love with-out any logical reason
Date: Wed Mar 13 15:48:19 PST 1996
Except for a few problems, NT has been very easily integrated into our
Win95/MacOS dominated network. It is also allowing us to integrate with a
larger campus-wide AFS network, and will make the transition to DCE much
Date: Thu Mar 14 10:19:53 PST 1996
I hate NT, but I am learning it, because we are going to be forced to
start using it.
Date: Thu Mar 14 13:15:15 PST 1996
I work two jobs. One as a system administrator for a small university and
another as a WebPage designer for a large engineering corporation. We
decied to use Unix at the University. However, I feel that the ease of
operation and publishing makes NT the server of choice for WebServers.
Let's face it, most non-technical people are just plain scared silly by
Unix -- with good reason. One false move and you're dead in the water.
Windows NT is much more forgiving, but it doesn't sacrifice too much power
to its fault tolerance. Sure Unix is faster. Unix will probably always be
faster. However, fact is fact, Unix is difficult. NT has it's degree of
difficulty -- But it's nothing like Unix.
Date: Thu Mar 14 21:58:18 PST 1996
We found NT very robust and easy to use. We can do all development and
documentation in one platform, instead of a few monitors sitting on the
desk. The networking support of Windows NT is also very easy to use. You
just go into the file manager and you can see everying on the network. The
only reason some of our department is still owning some Unix workstation
is our cad software don't run on Windows NT yet.
Date: Fri Mar 15 05:37:00 PST 1996
We have a NT domain server, possibly three Netware LAN with WFW (clients)
front-ends. Each of these are an island in itself. The NT does not talk to
the other LANs. The state of affairs seems to have been around for a few
years already. Easy to use, almost the same as WFW. The new W95 interface
when released is going to prove a bit clunky. Won't think that there will
be any major trouble with users.
the other hand, there is a Win95 experimental server which well, is
probably being thinkered on by ...various academics and possibly research
students, at the university, in the Mathematics dept. * NT & W95 is not
hard to learn compared to Unix. * I would however feel that NT will be
hard in the hands of inexperienced professionals, who only know how to
preach and rarely implement what they teach. NT would probably be well
received at my site if implemented. The Netware servers are unlikely to be
displaced. It will just be a mix environment. (Most of these are
assumptions about the university's plans and in any case won't contribute
any marks to my course....)
Date: Fri Mar 15 11:35:38 PST 1996
NT is easy to use and easy to learn at the user side. At the system
administrator side, NT is hard to manage, beyond his very small windowing
Date: Fri Mar 15 10:11:56 PST 1996
Yes, NT is well received by our IT department, but they lack the need for
high end computing devices since these are managed by ourselves
(scientists). ====They are ignorant about Unix!!! NT is rather easy to use
but not much easier than Solaris. The user account management on NT
however lacks good tools! (Better with Solaris) Overall, I think the
difference between NT and Unix is rather small. The biggest threat to Unix
is to my opinion the very cheap hardware compared to Unix vendors
Date: Mon Mar 18 08:53:11 PST 1996
NT is used widely in our company and our department. It is very robust and
can integrate with some ease (although there is loss of funcionality) with
the other operating environments we use. Because most of our users have
had some experience with Windows 3.x the transition for those now using NT
is somewhat easy. I like NT very much both for its strength and ease of
use. I would, however like to see it adopt other standards such as NFS as
part of the core operating system. I believe an improvement like that
would give the Unix world a run for their money.
Date: Sun Mar 17 13:56:41 PST 1996
One systems manager likes DOS, the other Windows NT. I like Unix but what
do they care??!
Date: Sat Mar 16 04:43:40 PST 1996
Extreme easy to use, setup, get started with. No real difficulties to
integrate with the already installed base of Unix servers. The power of NT
is in the price/performance. All "heavy duty" systems are today designed
and written on Sun Solaris, but the end user tools have taken a turn the
last year. We now see more and more demand of Win32-versions. The
organization is also taking action start porting tools to Win32. More than
50% of the new projects will most certainly be Win32 first. Then maybe
Solaris. Again The power of NT is in the price/performance. The price
picture of Solaris systems (workstations and dev- & user-tools) is not
competitive to Win32-tools (Microsoft Visual C++, SourceSafe, MicroSoft
Date: Mon Mar 18 11:33:59 PST 1996
implementation and training is a joke. domains are not set up correctly,
the support group does not know what is't doing even after obtaining MS NT
Date: Mon Mar 18 17:19:48 PST 1996
NT has been bought into by less technical management as an enterprise
network server solution. Having worked with NT for the last 18 months I
have my serious doubts that NT can deliver the robustness and reliability
that Unix has proven to deliver. The fact that there are different flavors
of Unix to choose from means that Unix will continue to improve and expand
in capabilities and applications. Competition is good for industry. When
one company calls all the shots, there is no incentive to improve price or
performance. The fact that NT is moving agressively toward supporting Unix
APIs should be a wakeup call to IT organizations that are betting the farm
on NT. NT is simpler to learn than Unix. The problem is that it is
deceptively simple. When problems arise, the tools to debug and resolve
are not there. As far as integration is concerned, the lack of third party
support is quite glaring.
Date: Mon Mar 18 17:24:08 PST 1996
In the process of integrating NT into organization.
Date: Mon Mar 18 17:24:40 PST 1996
In the process of integrating NT into organization.
Date: Mon Mar 18 22:30:23 PST 1996
NT is easy to use when the apps are specifically written for NT.
Date: Tue Mar 19 07:30:57 PST 1996
N.T. has fit well into our organization but still lacks the robustness of
Date: Tue Mar 19 08:57:19 PST 1996
NT is far easier to install and administer than Solaris. Part of this is
the installation process itself, but a large part is also because users
find NT easier to use than Unix. That means they don't have to come to me
(SA) as frequently. I think Unix will be forced into higher-end capacities
as NT takes over more and more of the desktop and low to mid level server
business. We have 15 workstations (SPARC 5) and 1 server (SC1000) at our
site, which we set up about 15 months ago. If we were doing it *now*, we'd
probably set up 15 NT P5 133s and 1 SC1000.
Date: Tue Mar 19 13:01:58 PST 1996
We moved to Windows NT because of our Client/Server Business system. We
also have 50 Windows NT users. Most are Graphic artists, and Business
systems users. Some learning curve dealing with file systems security
under Windows NT. It made any problems I had with Unix security in the
past look like a walk in the park. But it is under control now. I have
found it to be an excellent OS overall for the PC market. The stability is
excellent. The applications which are designed for NT really perform. You
need to be willing to invest in powerful hardware to get the most from NT.
The interface duplicates that of Windows 3.x, especially Workgroups.
Anyone not used to Windows will find most of the same Windows quirks. I
believe that in a couple of years, NT will sit along side Unix-based OSes
as a competent, powerful platform. NT definitely has the advantage of the
large Windows installed base.
Date: Tue Mar 19 15:08:38 PST 1996
Investigating using NT as a replacement for our AppleShare Server. Ideally
we want a workgroup server that can support AppleShare, NFS, and IPX. We
have an NT system in house as an Oracle server, but it is a development
system only--not on-line. Next Year we will likely upgrade our NetWare
3.12 servers... to NetWare 4.x? NT? other? NT looks like it can be a
powerful server/network system, but it looks like there are some
complicated issues involved in understanding how you want to set up NT
Domains for your network.
Date: Tue Mar 19 16:42:31 PST 1996
NT has promise, but needs much improvement in several key areas. 1) Get
rid of that Progman Interface! 2) Managing a large network of MS
networking computers is a pain. NT needs something like NDS (why not
license it?) that will allow centralized user management of a single tree.
Until then, managing NT domains is too cumbersome and expensive for large
corporations. 3) NT is too slow when used as a simple file and print
server when compared to Netware. The vast majority of services from
servers are still file and print related, and until NT can match Netware's
power, scalability, and economy in these areas, it won't be a good
bargain. 4) It makes a good application server, but I wouldn't use it as a
file server for *anything* except a small workgroup. 5) NT, while
promising, is not as mature and ready to run applications as Netware. NT's
greatest strength is when compared to Unix as an application server. 6)
When are we going to see 64-bit NT?
Date: Tue Mar 19 19:09:20 PST 1996
Our shop is mostly SunOS based, with development starting to shift to PCs.
Our PC developers are using NT as a development platform, and find it very
stable and largely bug-free. We use Samba on a couple of our Sun servers
to make them available as file servers (as an alternative to PC-NFS or a
similar product). For those of us doing PC development, we have pretty
much moved off our Suns. We have a PC X-server for those "legacy" apps we
still need to run. And of course, we have a plethora of Windows apps:
Word, Excel (finally, a REAL spreadsheet), Lotus Notes (the Sun version is
such a pig!), etc. I imagine that over time we'll move some of our Sybase
servers to either Sybase for NT or MS SQL Server. And I would imagine that
product development will slowly shift towards NT, also. I think we'll
still have Unix around for many years, but it won't be the "leading edge"
that it used to be.
Date: Tue Mar 19 19:46:02 PST 1996
NT seems to be a good edition to a somewhat heterogenous crowd of users.
Some on our site use DOS/Windows, some use Windows 95, and others are
using different flavors of Unix. NT is definitely the best non-Unix OS
available hands down.
Date: Wed Mar 20 00:34:36 PST 1996
NT certainly has a place. The modular design and kernal protection,
although causing a performance hit, are evolutionary, robust and flexible.
And it's a lot easier to learn. In item #5, although I don't think NT will
supplant Unix, I do think it will augment it in many applications. And
hell, you can plug a Unix OS into NT! In addition, I think the muliple
flavors of Unix _are_ both a strenght and weakness. A strenght in the
sense variation in developement can lead to innovation and robustness. A
weakness due to fragmentation of the market and a multitude of
"standards". Open Systems? Microsoft is as least as open as Sun. More so,
really. Consider the architectures Sun supports...Sun, and Intel (sort
of). How about HP, DEC, or even SCO? NT runs on Intel, MIPS, Alpha, and
PowerPC. There are obvious reasons for this of course. How many NT
applications are being ported to Sun vs Sun applications to NT?
Date: Wed Mar 20 01:56:46 PST 1996
Easy to integrate using NFS. Users get access to programs such as Excel,
although we do not find version 7 very stable on NT 3.51. NT has the sort
of user interface that makes less experienced system administrators more
comfortable, compared to Solaris. Out of a staff of 40 people we have four
people using NT. However, they can be found on the Sun box's as frequently
as they are on the NT workstations.
Date: Wed Mar 20 11:31:13 PST 1996
NT is overall pretty easy to roll out, however it is far less functional
in a distributed setting than Unix. Too much about NT requires that
support people physically visit the desktop. The support tools provided
with the OS are extremely primitive. For instance, the log viewer can
display only one log message at a time, and there's no way to print the
log out from the application. On Unix, of course, there is no log viewer,
however it's easy to access and print any system's log files remotely. On
NT, the log files are not accessable from a DOS box - even if remote
access were available, you couldn't reasonably display log messages. NT
can integrate with other OSes on the network (we use SAMBA extensively for
serving home directories) however many NT standards fly in the face of
reasonable integration. * The mail reader, for instance, uses a
proprietary protocol instead of PPP (on the client) or SMTP (on the
server). As a result, storing and delivering e-mail to NT-only users has
never worked very well, and definitely not as well as Unix-based clients
and servers. * NT provides both direct network access to network drives
using UNC, and the virtual drive indicators (C:, D:, etc.) yet both
methods don't integrate well for many of our users. We're always getting
conflicts between volumes mapped to virtual drives and UNC access.
Date: Wed Mar 20 11:42:49 PST 1996
It has been a good experience working with NT. Our organization lacks of
good Unix administrators, so it has been a good solution for us to use NT
servers. We're planning to review beta Release 4.
Date: Wed Mar 20 12:55:25 PST 1996
People are hot to learn it. In a couple of years it may be in a position
to push Unix off the shelf.
Date: Wed Mar 20 16:36:56 PST 1996
Realiable and yet poorly-appreciated
Date: Wed Mar 20 18:46:53 PST 1996
In my department, we use both NT workstation and NT server. But I do not
administrate NT server. I'm using NT workstation and administrate it as a
local administrator. From my experience, I think NT is not easy to use,
not reliable still now. File system is complicated, registry is much more
complicated, and NT system was stopped twice in our usual operation. Of
courese some of NT's functions are convenient, if we can use those.
(Because it is diffucult to use NT's funcions.) But it does not mean NT is
bad nor useless, because Unix is difficult for most of people. I think NT
is best for serving filesystems and applications for Windows PC. The
reason why we use NT is that we use Windows.
Date: Wed Mar 20 18:46:59 PST 1996
From conversations I have had with others it appears that : * NT has good
basic standalone features. * The Networking and Enterprise features are
unproven and no-one seems to have any real experience/recommendations for
large scale deployment. Within our organization (>40,000 users, multiple
distinct departments) NT has been mandated as the standard desktop. So
far, I have heard nothing to indicated that sufficient functionality,
applications and tools are available under NT to allow it to replace our
network management infrastructure.
Date: Wed Mar 20 19:31:11 PST 1996
1. Yes. 2. NT is easy to use than Unix. 3. NT is not a real good OS for
Internet information service. 4. For LAN, NT is better than Unix, but
worst than Novell.
Date: Wed Mar 20 19:41:12 PST 1996
It's easy to use, but the command-line tools are (expletive deleted) compared w/Unix.
This alone makes me prefer Unix as a desktop OS. However, the availability of desktop apps is better in NT. All my printers are PostScript, so
Unix and NT both support them well. I wish companies such as WordPerfect
would release more portable versions of their Unix apps that run on
diverse OSes like FreeBSD that are not as commercially well-known, but
better systems than Solaris or BSDI for individual desktop use.
Date: Wed Mar 20 22:08:31 PST 1996
We just started up to replace all OS/2 servers with Windows NT. We are
working in the financial market where Windows NT as a client seems to
become a standard. On the server side however, Windows NT is only used for
OA. The programm we have to deliver OA to every of our 25,000 users is not
well underway. NT shows up to be troublesome and not scalable. But since
critical applications are using Solaris servers, the influence on business
is not so critical.
Date: Wed Mar 20 23:33:43 PST 1996
It is an excellent operating system that is very much needed these days.
It is simpler to learn. It has very rich features which you don't find in
Unix. It is becoming de-facto standard server for C/S applications. It is
very stable and is also secure.(There are no sendmail bugs here.) Would
like to see Windows NT being accepted worldwide and it will succeed.
Date: Thu Mar 21 01:02:33 PST 1996
I came into networks while working as an IBM mainframe programer. I had
one of our first PCs with an IRMA board and had responsabilty for
providing our mainframe application data to clients using PC applications
such as Lotus. We progress to Netware 2.15 and SNA Gateways and so
forth... We now have over 150 Novell serves on our 'IntraNet' which is
connected to the Internet along with hosts such as an IBM ES9000,large
Tandem, and HP. Along with AS400s, Vaxs, and a slew of sundry Unix
hosts(even some SUN boxes). I still have responsabilties that include
making mainframe data available to our clients along with supporting two
Novell servers, two NT servers, and 20 Intel based workstations running a
mostly Win95 with several WFW machines that are used for training and two
NT Workstation machines. We brought up the NT servers as database serves
to investigate client server computing and data warehousing. We now have
over 3 million records online and availble to our clients desktops in a
little under a year's worth of part time work by two programers, a
functional analyst, and a manager. And we have spent less then $15,000 on
hardware. NT installs as easy as Windows 3.1 and SQL Server like a desktop
application. I would say our introduction to NT was positive, especally
when the same data warehouse project was bid at $150,000 by a competing
application group to share their SPARC server.
Date: Thu Mar 21 01:30:12 PST 1996
used for small SQL Server applications, affordable, easy to install, no
maintenance, easy merged into Windows environment
Date: Thu Mar 21 03:17:14 PST 1996
After numerous attempts and massive hype NT seems to be maturing into a
relatively solid departmental server. Currently it is severely lacking at
the enterprise level and probably will for some time to come...
Date: Thu Mar 21 05:19:16 PST 1996
NT is pretty useless compared to Solaris, HOWEVER, Sun had better get act
together and agressivley push Solaris for x86 desktop. Sun should start
with it's pricing strategy, give the damn software away for free (or for
the cost of the distribution), none of this $600/seat, (before discount)
Sun needs market share on the desktop, and this is the only way to get
Date: Thu Mar 21 05:37:09 PST 1996
We do not have NT installed at our site, but have begun to consider it due
to its anticipated widespread use in Industry. As an educational
institution, we are obliged to teach using the predominant environment for
a given field, and currently, Unix is the preferred OS in the research we
Date: Thu Mar 21 06:00:16 PST 1996
It is well received by users because it is like Windows. I find it very
easy to use and administer despite having a Unix background. The lack of
built in NFS support is the only real integration problem we have had. I
think NT with a 95 GUI could be the a definitive relase if it is as stable
as the current version of NT.
Date: Thu Mar 21 06:52:14 PST 1996
[Do not attribute these comments, please] Relatively trouble-free. A
little tiresome as a MS OS since it doesn't support all MS-DOS programs,
but stable. Some aspects of systems programming are not as well exposed by
MS as they might be, which can hinder development of low-level or high-
performance apps. Administration is reasonably straight-forward. I'm
beta'ing NT 4.0, and (hate to say that) I love it. If only Unix (my home
territory) had such a professional and responsive GUI. NT4 is adaptable
without needing to understand the minutiae of every type of config file.
Date: Thu Mar 21 07:01:28 PST 1996
We have evaluated NCD's Wincenter Pro as a mechanism for deploying Windows
applications to our 150+ X terminals. We will purchase either Wincenter
Pro, Insignia's NTrigue, or Connecsoft's X Connection. Unfortunately,
they're not cheap! Easy to use: yes. Troublesome: it's probably not at
stable as Solaris. A breeze to integrate: hell no! There's no NIS/NIS+
client support, no disk quotas, no NFS, no bootpd/tftpd. Some of these are
available from 3rd party, but IMHO Micro$oft needs to bundle them. Hard to
learn: somewhat. Buy a good book (no recommendations yet), read it cover
to cover, and go play.
Date: Thu Mar 21 07:26:31 PST 1996
Thanks for the chance to comment. Ours is weird environment, because it's
sort of a split shop. There are maybe 100-150 Unix and 700-800 PC's (and a
few Macs). All of the PC's and Macs use Banyan servers (a Unix derivative)
for mail, etc. The NT, if they switch, would replace Banyan and
DOS/Windows, but probably (hopefully) not the Suns. I'm not sure why
they're so keen on it, since Banyan's a great OS for a large org, but they
want to. Despite the fact that it sounds like there are big problems with
NT, many people here are excited about it. I haven't actually used it,
though, so I don't know the answer to many of your questions. The thing
that scares me the most is that it has all of these services available,
and no one knows anything about the security (holes!) on the platform.
Used to be we didn't have to worry much about "the PC side" compromising
Date: Thu Mar 21 08:30:23 PST 1996
I have been using NT for about 4 years now. NT was not truely read for
production until 3.51 was released. I feel it is right on the line of
being just stable enough for mission critical applications. Everyone loves
NT except for people using Solaris or HP Unix... NT can be setup by
anyone, but not setup correctly unless a lot of time is spent
understanding the big picture and taking time to build a proper
domain/security model. My biggest complaints about NT is the lack of
USEFULL tech support(we ussually no more about NT then Microsoft's
Techs.), and that it is as fare from open as you can get. My biggest
complaints are about Microsoft in general and not NT...
Date: Thu Mar 21 09:32:23 PST 1996
Moving Unix (SunOS, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX) based product to NT. Much easier
to setup than Unix. User interface better accepted than X Window System
variants. No contest, really.
Date: Thu Mar 21 09:52:06 PST 1996
I love NT.. It's not perfect but, then what OS is??
Date: Thu Mar 21 10:04:26 PST 1996
About the only standard that our organization has is TCP/IP. NT has been
fairly easy to integrate into a TCP/IP and Unix environment as
supplementary servers or PC workstation operating system. However, the
lack of ability to create common accounts with Unix systems is a major
handicap to NT as a server OS. We are migrating from DEC Pathworks as a PC
server, and NT has been easy to substitute for Pathworks. I look to a
gradual replacement of DOS, Windows, and Windows 95 by NT as a desktop
operating system, and for a lot of use of NT as a file/print server and as
a Web server.
Date: Thu Mar 21 10:55:28 PST 1996
NT is the most stable Microsoft OS. It is a full 32 bit implementation. So
it doesn't need the workarounds, external support to run 32 bit
applications. In developing MS Windows products, NT appears to be the most
robust in handling errors. Overall, NT is the best OS Microsoft has to
offer. Although it has a loooong way to go, to get near a real OS like
Date: Thu Mar 21 12:02:37 PST 1996
MS is more than six months late in delivering a 10 user copy of NT v.3.51
for evaluation. Given their prediliction for over- promising and far
under-delivering, I doubt NT will have the impact that MS is claiming.
Come to think of it...has anything of MS' in the past 5 years had impact
which lives up to its hype? The one time I did help a local college
install an NT server setup, the installation went very smoothly. The
problems came when the SysAdmin tried to get NT to conform to the
realities which existed in that particular network. Much like Win95, which
thinks nothing of reconfiguring itself to its' own satisfaction each time
it starts... and locking out your modem or CD drive, NT got balky when we
tried to explain just how one group of five users would be connecting to
the NT server via an AS400. NT took the setup ok, but as soon as one of
the users tried to connect, NT generated error messages indicating the
"non-standard" gateway was not responding. It took several attempts and
two or three downloads from MS to get things smoothed over.
Date: Thu Mar 21 12:22:44 PST 1996
Nt is better than Win95, but both are terrible at intercommunication, with
other systems like Unix in particular. Win95 cannot access LAN, WinNT
cannot get on MSN network!
Date: Thu Mar 21 16:39:41 PST 1996
NT seems to be an enourmously complicated software project with many
design problems and software bugs. Microsoft's expensive per minute "help"
is a serious disadvantage for many of my client's, especially given the
size of the "knowledge base" problem file, which documents bugs which the
owner of NT then has to pay for to discover is a bug and cannot be
fixed!!! NT's performance is questionable with high-end PC (i.e., co-
Date: Thu Mar 21 20:45:49 PST 1996
NT is becoming the standard OS on all of our PC's and Portable units that
are used for developing/production/demos. Many of the personell at this
site are also talking of using NT on their home PC's.. With all the
problems and bad publicity of Win95, there is a feeling that Win3.x is a
poor OS and they must make a change to something more reliable--in this
case that leaves NT or OS2warp. However with IBM's marketing abilities, it
seems they will never be able to sell OS2 even if it really is better than
any others on the market. Therefore NT is the best choice--also, NT is a
32-bit OS whereas there is a lot of question as to any other product
meeting this criteria. Now that we are using NT, we find ourselves
wondering why we did not use it sooner. Actually, we bought a version of
NT at the company and no one would dare use it -- it sat for over a year
before anyone installed it on a system. At this point it is the new wave
in the OS area at our site. And I do not see that changing in the near
future. Especially since there are becoming more programs available that
allow 32-bit machines to talk to Unix without leaving a Windows session.
Date: Fri Mar 22 09:02:51 PST 1996
I've found NT fairly easy to setup and learn. It was easy to integrate
into our library network. It is not as stable as I expected which makes me
wary of using it as a server...
Date: Fri Mar 22 10:24:52 PST 1996
As a desktop OS we are going to migrate to it. As a server, the majority
of our servers will stay on Unix. Compared to our Unix servers, I find NT
too proprietary. I don't like having to buy all these add on products in
order to get a server to do what I want (quotas, remote access, remote
management, backup, access to full TCP/IP and NFS). Under NT I am limited
to what NT provides or I buy. Under Unix I can write scripts and launch
processes to do maintenance functions (watch disk space, watch processes,
send reports via e-mail, send snmp traps).
Date: Fri Mar 22 12:28:03 PST 1996
NT has solved some problems with Windows 3.1, allowing multiple resource
hogs to run at the same time. On the other hand, it brings along it's own
set of problems, like software incompatibility, lack of device driver
support for things like credit card readers, signature capture devices,
etc. My desktop NT PC hangs at least once per week as I logout. Netware
connectivity isn't perfect, when I change my password, I have to do it on
Netware first, or else I get shut out of my fileserver connectivity.
Microsoft continues to claim openness and conformance to standards, while
at the same time making proprietary changes to them. PPP, for example.
Every internet provider in the nation had to modify their systems to
support Microsoft's non-standard PPP. Forget us that wouldn't mind
connecting NT to Unix, no, we're not important to Microsoft. If they think
we'll drop tried and true Unix for the next beta release of NT, they've
got another think coming.
Date: Fri Mar 22 13:35:20 PST 1996
I've Been using NT since June of 94 and find it "Not as mature" as Unix,
but certainly on the "right course". NT's inability to natively compete
with X Window System functionality I see as one of it's biggest problems with
competeing head to head with Unix. I increaseingly find it difficult to
locate expertise on NT amongst my peers but that too should change in
time. I find The Microsoft Certified Engineer program less than effective,
and certainly more costly than it should be. I recognize that MS doesn't
want to "rubber-stamp" "NT pretenders" But remember, the problem that MSCE
addresses is in the previous paragraph.
Date: Fri Mar 22 19:19:36 PST 1996
I use Solaris at work and NT at home. I wish I could have on NT what I
have on Solaris: 1. Open Windows. 2. Richness of shells which exist on
Solaris. 3. Abundance of commands. 4. Emacs/VI editors. 5. Compatibility
of X/GUI-Motif/Windows. 6. No DOS!!!! Until above is accomplished NT will
not achieve its popularity. 1. Solaris must be competitive in price to NT.
Until #1 is done, Solaris will not be open to all other people.
Date: Sat Mar 23 09:47:48 PST 1996
The best attributes of NT are it's ease of use for connecting DOS,
Windows,and Mac's and it's ability to sufficently serve as both a file and
application server. I don't see it overtaking Unix in the high-end or
mission-critical markets. It will probably overtake Unix in the low-end
application server market. I think Netware will continue to be the choice
at most business for one reason, they already have so much invested in it,
it doesn't make good business sense to switch totally for no real reason.
NT appears to make a great low to mid traffic Web Server. It will find
it's niche by eating a little away from Unix and a little away from Novell
but not overtaking either of them. It is easy to learn and integrates well
with Netware, but they could work on their Unix/Linux intergration a
Date: Sat Mar 23 18:29:34 PST 1996
NT has demonstrated (once again) Microsoft's contempt for customers who
care about reliability. Our experiences with NT show that it is simply not
stable enough to use as as a 24-hour server -- it crashes too frequently.
It is a fragile system. Furthermore, the way MS cooks benchmark numbers
makes it impossible to evaluate its expected performance without expensive
Date: Sun Mar 24 01:51:31 PST 1996
Very positive so far. Decision has been made to replace Apple file servers
with WinNT. Desktops will almost certainly go WinNT as well, for ease of
management and lower support costs. (Users can't destroy the system.) Main
limitation is the difficulty of porting classic timesharing applications.
As more apps move to client/server or TP-monitors, this will go away. We
aren't about to move the business-critical customer apps to NT, but
anything else, up to and including the finance system, is a candidate for
migration. Main virtue is the freedon of choice of hardware vendors, and
the excellant support coming from software vendors. Many s/w vendors are
saying they will be dropping development of Unix versions in the next 1-2
years. We haven't hit many bugs, so far. Certainly no more than the
average Unix release. Integration with the Solaris environment is a worry,
but 90% of our servers will be Windows NT, so the other 10% better get
compatible. Windows NT is easy enough to learn, once you shake off the
Unix straightjacket and realize that htere are other ways to do things.
Date: Sun Mar 24 06:20:27 PST 1996
No synchronized directories. Trusted domains difficult to manage.
Date: Sun Mar 24 07:37:57 PST 1996
Our top two products are based on NT so our future rests with NT. However
all of our "back room" servers are Sun/SunOS4 systems, and some desktops
where performance is an issue. Windows/NT makes a cost effective desktop
platform for software development and for some EE CAD applications when
the NT desktop is augmented with an Xwindow server such as Hummingbird
Date: Sun Mar 24 12:27:06 PST 1996
We tried to set up an NT server and had nothing but troubles. It is a half
baked solution between the wretched Windows OS and Unix. People should use
either Unix or a good desktop environment like MacOS.
Date: Sun Mar 24 22:35:29 PST 1996
NT is easy to use, but, a lot of difference in De-facto standard. For
example, Microsoft TCP/IP is not same as we,Unix user use, and also DHCP
functions. Yes, NT is well-received at our site. Becouse of easy use, and
it's NOT for main server(Not so important, only use for test). The problem
of NT is too easy to use. So many people make servers on small LAN, and it
makes confusing of protocols or services(for example DNS or someting).
Trouble has occurr on Microsoft's DOMAIN system. That is a big problem
same as Windows 95 server function. NT Server is very familier to user,
but no one understand, how to maintain and keep safe of the networks.
Date: Mon Mar 25 09:16:56 PST 1996
After working with OS/2 and trying to find hardware and software that
would satisfy our customers requirements, Windows NT was really easy to
setup and install.
Date: Mon Mar 25 09:32:32 PST 1996
We have migrated 4 million lines of Unix code to NT platform NT is
relatively easy to use once we learned what is really going on. Most of
our problems have been with troublesome hardware. We used NutCracker to
ease the pain of transition which it did but at quite a cost in
Date: Mon Mar 25 10:59:39 PST 1996
A year ago, NT was not well-received. Our Corporate Information Services
headquarters was decidedly against NT as a standard OS within the company.
However, as more plant sites began buying NT Servers, mostly due to costs,
Corporate Information Services headquarters was forced to train
individuals to support the plant systems or be "out-sourced". And the
result is that our administrators are beginning to love NT. It is easy to
install, easy to use, and easy to learn. However, it's the "re-bootinest"
system that I have ever worked with, and often requires a lot of reloading
during the beginning of your network layout. If you set it up wrong, you
have to re-install the OS. However, installing is not hard. I happen to
love Unix and am infatuated with NT. I see a lot of resemblance between
the two. I predict that the two Operating Systems will look and act more
alike as new releases are made public. Kinda looks like NT is nothing more
than a new flavor of Unix.
Date: Mon Mar 25 11:21:09 PST 1996
Ms-mail Post-office installed on server + usage as file-server. User-
friendly in administrating if it works!! Not that stable what you would
expect of a "robust" multi-threading OS.
Date: Mon Mar 25 12:10:49 PST 1996
NT has been used as an application server and logon server with users
accounts and directories for Windows 3.1, Windows 95 and Unix desktops. It
has been fairly easy to administer except that we have had to license a
product from Citrix to get a multiple connection/user version of NT.
Date: Mon Mar 25 13:45:44 PST 1996
I don't like it very much.
Date: Mon Mar 25 14:52:30 PST 1996
I want to use NT at work (desktop) as I already use it at home. I do some
programming on Solaris in C++ and like to take advantage of the half-dozen
or so SMP servers on our network for running large parallel programs
(techie stuff...) I find NT easy to install and use. It will most likely
supplant servers like Netware that only do one thing. I like the
ecological metaphor, in the absence of competition, one gets either over-
specialization (Netware) and/or gigantism (mainframe). Omnivores (Unix &
NT) will eventually rule. There is a place for both systems and they'll
probably force each other to evolve faster than either would have alone.
I'll probably use NT to build simple interfaces to my models as my manager
is most comfortable in Excel. With NT, I have a robust environment that I
can use to extend Excel. This will probably include calls to Unix servers
(Solaris) to do the real work. The user just won't see it. I don't know if
NT will replace Netware across the whole company here, but I wish it
would, our Netware servers don't seem that reliable to me. It might be,
however, the guys managing them. The fact that you need to be a Netware
techie (CNE) probably says enough about administering the beast. The
people I know that use NT as a server seem to be really happy with it.
Date: Tue Mar 26 11:06:47 PST 1996
Very easy installation process. The scsi device's I unplugged from my
Solaris 2.4 LX and plugged into the NT came up easily, and with no
"tailoring". The technical documentation on the real workings of NT seem
to be only available through formal education, and Resource Kits. Easy to
work on, easy to use, and very stable OS. The extra's that make it an open
systems solution (X-server, X-client, NFS, etc.) are very shakey and
currently fairly limited in scope.
Date: Tue Mar 26 11:00:50 PST 1996
NT is the network operating system for the global WAN as well as the LAN.
As a file and application server, it is fine. As an Oracle Database
Server, it seems OK, but not great. I have only used NT for a few months.
It is no harder to learn than Unix
Date: Tue Mar 26 05:54:29 PST 1996
I like the look and feel of NT over Solaris. We want NT on a SPARC now!!!
We want NT on a SPARC now!!! We want NT on a SPARC now!!! We want NT on a
Date: Mon Mar 25 20:09:01 PST 1996
Windows NT is great. :-)
Date: Tue Mar 26 20:59:54 PST 1996
I've been working with NT for several years. My experiences with NT are
primarily positive. Overall, NT provides a solid platform for our server
needs and also provides a better, more secure, desktop than Windows 3.x
for those PC's with enough horsepower and RAM to support NT. In my
opinion, the biggest strength of NT is it's ease of administration. For
most common tasks, a consistent GUI is provided for the adminstrator.
Also, there's a common model that's followed by most software vendors for
setup and configuration of NT software. Additionally, the ability to
adequately perform the functions of file and print server, general
applications server, and also support end user desktop applications is a
major plus for NT. I'm sure that Unix may be a better platform for many
applications; and NetWare is arguably a better file and print server. But
most organizations do not have the staff to maintain expertise for
multiple client server operating environments; especially for
adminstration of small or remote branch sites. This is where NT is a nice
fit as a "jack of all trades" even if it's "the master of none". I'll
admit that my experience with Unix systems is limited and somewhat dated.
However, my memories of using vi to setup most configuration information
are not pleasant memories. Also, the need to configure each application
independently for such things as printer drivers was a real pain. But
ease-of-use and ease-of-integration is relative to one's personal
Date: Wed Mar 27 14:50:08 PST 1996
We have a server set up and several desktop systems that are being
evaluated, and are planning on beginning to put NT workstations on
desktops in our administrative area soon. It has been well received for
its robustness as far as computers not crashing. And with the W95
interface now an intergral part of NT 4.0 it has gotten rid completely of
the ugly old Windows 3.x style native interface. Installation and
integration has not been that easy to learn and there were many headaches
involved in learning the ins and outs of the installation process. Even
now we are grappling with nuances of how to support these systems easily.
From a user's perspective I expect it to be a win. From a systems support
perspective it's hard now, but I am anticipating it will get easier as we
acquire more intimate knowledge of the OS. One thing I've found very weak
is the documentation that is written for the support staff. It all
contains a great deal of information, but the organization is abysmal.
Date: Wed Mar 27 14:56:46 PST 1996
NT has been very well received here as a workstation solution. It has
solved some troublesome issues regarding multiple heavy duty
graphics/mathmatical applications open all at once. It is an easy,
relatively robust solution for X connectivity that also provides hooks
into office productivity software. For the most part, installation and
support has been pretty breezy. We have had problems with a few systems
and wish there was a larger set of specialized drivers for NT, but they
will come. We use NT in an integrated environment - Sun Unix systems,
Novell servers, PCs and Macs at the desktop and it has proved to be quite
versatile. I am NOT a Microsoft fan, but so far NT has shown itself to be
a useful, flexible OS for our company. Documentation is EXTREMELY
obfuscatory! Simple issues are not addressed or are buried in the manuals.
The tech support has for the most part been okay, but I have had a call or
two that really pissed me off! When I am paying a hundred bucks for a
support call, I expect the support engineers to be knowledgeable, helpful
Date: Wed Mar 27 20:44:07 PST 1996
Working in the CAD?CAM area, NT has been very well accepted. We will be
implementing EDM/PDM, Workflow, Drawing Management solutions onm NY /
Oracle platforms. We are just getting NT installed.
Date: Thu Mar 28 06:22:13 PST 1996
Currently only used as Windows/Intel application server using WinCenter
Date: Thu Mar 28 07:46:51 PST 1996
The prior experiences of NT are irrelevant because it is viewed as a not-
yet mature product. The commitment of MS carries considerable value with
non technical persons who (sometimes) rule by fiat, and who control
Date: Thu Mar 28 13:45:04 PST 1996
It is still a new product for us but it is being recieved favorably by the
user community which will be affected (newpaper pagination). How well it
will scale up in our environment is an open question (in my mind) I
personally am wary of it (and microsoft in general) but novell seems
incapable of countering NT's perceived strengths, providing clear
arguments in favor of Netware and Novell's continued aragance all favor
Date: Thu Mar 28 14:09:40 PST 1996
At the moment, we are testing nt as an MS Exchange server and as a RAS
server (ppp). Exchange is fairly impressive, and RAS is very impressive.
NT is generally a breeze compared to Solaris. But Solaris is still far
more powerful and I would give my life for it (as would any other SysOp in
their right mind),
Date: Thu Mar 28 16:53:17 PST 1996
Geez, what's your fetish with NT? It appears to be a Poor Unix-like O/S to
Date: Thu Mar 28 22:37:29 PST 1996
One programmer in my group called NT, "...all of the pain of Unix but none
of the gain." One programmer is using it so that we can claim knowledge of
it as an organization. NT's ease of use only exists for those already
entrenched in MS-DOS and earlier MS Windows systems. For those of us who
haven't lived and breathed the religion of Microsoft, it's no easier to
use than Unix, more difficult to develop for, and clearly less capable out
of the box. Windows NT will be an open architecture OS when there are
competitors making OS's that will run 99% of NT applications. I can't
actually imagine that ever happening.
Interview with Solaris head MacKay
Check out our back issues
News: "Jakarta" is how Microsoft spells Java
SunWorld Online is published by Web Publishing Inc., an IDG Communications company, independently of Sun
Microsystems Inc., which is not responsible for its contents. The
opinions expressed in SunWorld Online are those of the
authors or the publisher, WPI/IDG, and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of its advertisers, or of Sun Microsystems, Inc. or its affiliates.
If you have problems with this magazine, contact
Last update: 1 April 1996
Click on our Sponsors to help Support SunWorld
If you have technical problems with this magazine, contact