Talk:NetWare

message: The section on Netware's current status goes on about their decline and seemingly only indicated it was because of Microsofts marketing.  To me this section reeks of a "poor loser" mentality and excuses of a pro Netware author.  It also goes on to say how subjective remarks like the Windows alternative was less reliable and more expensive.
I think an improvement would be to actually give MS some credit as the market really changed when Windows 2000 with its own directory service (Active Directory) with also the option of running the new Exchange 2000 that was integrated with AD (unlike Exchange 5.5) which gave potential clients some very good reasons for considering switching.  I was the IT manager at a college and I know switching from Netware/Notes to AD/Exchange was a very refreshing change for us - which was also cheaper (albeit at educational pricing) to purchase and maintain.
djambalawa (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not giving MS credit.. again...

message: This part makes no sense.  NDS was a great, easy to use tool.  I've worked with a lot of NetWare instalations, and people complain about a lot of things, but not NDS.  It was a painless upgrade from bindery, and much more useful.  Much better than NT Domains.  I'm removing this part190.10.22.214 21:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NDS as an strategic mistake? 

message: the section on the technical reasons for NetWare's decline is too lengthy, and too pedantic.  There are numerous technical reasons which could be advanced for the rise and fall of any product.  You don't need to mention them all.  Maybe some people thought "SYS" was confusing as a default mapped drive - maybe, but who cares?  It's too trivial.  That section should be shortened, and the point about the difficulty of drives being resized cut out altogether.  This article is not the place to go into such details.
210.48.84.234 06:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  technical decline reasons too verbose 

message: As I recall, shortly after Novell's acquisition of Ximian and SuSE, they announced on their web site that 6.x would be the last version of NetWare. No proof, but can anyone corroborate this? -- Enigmatick 22:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NetWare beyond 6.x 

message: In line with the above section referring to the Linux kernel, while "OES NetWare" really refers to "NetWare as included with Open Enterprise Server," it is not yet another NetWare version, nor does it represent further development of the NetWare platform. This section - particularly referring to OES 2.0 - implies that NetWare was moved to a 64-bit kernel (or an entire 64-bit archtecture) which is wholly inaccurate. NetWare as included with OES is 32-bit NetWare 6.5, no more, no less. OES has the ability to run it virtualized - as a 32-bit guest on a 32-bit or 64-bit hypervisor - but still as 32-bit. Likewise, iFolder 3.x never shipped as a NetWare component; iFolder 3.x was only ever available under the OES Linux kernel, again, as referenced above.
In short, the entire OES section should come out except as it pertains to the virtualization of NetWare 6.5 and the included licensing for NetWare with OES.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckysdad (talk • contribs) 03:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  OES is not NetWare 

message: How about describing the present product first, and the history later?
:I agree. I don't think it's good to start the history section with the decline of NetWare, either. It should be rearranged chronologically. Rhobite 00:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look back to before 23 Nov. Up to then it was setup fine. All this decline stuff went in then - it's probably valid enough in some ways - but most certainly should be down the bottom - ie in chrono order (imho)Snori 06:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't realize it was a new addition.. that explains the lack of talk. I think it is valid, but there are some speculative parts of it. I toned it down a little, but it still suggests that NetWare was technically superior to LAN Manager / NT and the only reason for NetWare's decline was Microsoft's marketing. Rhobite 22:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I plan to go forward with the re-org suggestions, as well as some material expansion regarding strategic decisions that led to NetWare's decline (not just chalking it up to Microsoft's "superior" marketing) -- unless someone objects within the next few days. EJSawyer 05:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearrange the page? 

message: In the Early Years section, there is this comment: "Prior to the 80286 CPU, servers were based on either the Intel 8086/8088 or Motorola 68000 8-bit processors that were limited to 640k RAM and lacked pre-emptive multi-tasking".  The 68000 is neither 8-bit, nor limited to 640kb ram.  Don't want to edit myself, as unsure if this error is due to confusion between the 68000 and the 6800 or if someone's assumed the attributes of the 8086/8088 apply to the 68k too.
Also, being pedantic, the 8086/8088 aren't limited to 640kb of RAM, rather the original IBM PC architecture imposed this limit.
Davidprior 21:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 6800 had 64KB max addressing capability, like 6502. The 68000 and 68008 CPUs had 6800 signals to allow seamless use of 6800 peripherals, could have been plugged into their original 6800 design. The 8086 had internal and external 16-bit buses (the 8088 had an external 8 bit bus), 16-bit data ALU, offsetting 2 16bit registers in a 20bit address ALU to give a 20 bit address, some instructions operated on 32bit data. The 68000 had internal and external 16-bit buses (the 68008 had an external 8 bit bus and external 20-bit address bus), 2 16bit data ALUs, one 16bit address ALU (two operations for 32bit address generation) and physical address truncated to 24 external pins, some instructions operated on 32bit data. Original Apple Mac was 128KB/512KB/1MB due to machine design choices. (A customized 68000 with modified microprogramming was used in the XT/370. Shjacks45 (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in [[Novell NetWare#Early Years|Early Years]] section

message: "Novell servers could be assembled using any brand system with an Intel 80286 or higher CPU, any MFM, RLL, ESDI, or SCSI hard drive and any 8-bit or 16-bit network adapter, subject to availability of suitable drivers."
Great, but what is MFM, RLL, and ESDI???  Now I googled them all and found out, but us younger folks have no idea what these mean without further explanation.  Perhaps they should be explained or at least be given a link to follow.  I would even say you could change this to avoid using these terms at all.  I won't change it due to my lack of knowledge of 80's computer equipment and Netware, but maybe someone should look at it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.93.155.35 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of Acronyms 

message: It lists the strategic mistakes as starting around 1995, and then in the next sentence lists FreeBSD and Linux as viable alternatives. FreeBSD 4 didn't rear it's ugly head until 2000 (according to wiki), and I am not entirely convinced linux was all the rage in 1995 either. I don't know that the article intends to say that these OSes were popular in 1995, but the wording is unclear. 69.143.88.44 (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategic Mistake Wording 

message: Even if you decide to run NetWare 6.5 without a bootable DOS partition, the DOS partition will still be created and the OS loads files from that partition during boot. BTW, is there a list over all released versions of NetWare?
Ximalas (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOS partition 

message: Late adoption of a GUI and a more publicly accepted programing environment were probably the two biggest failures. Java capability came along in version 5 and by then the Windows environment was embeded on every school kids desktop. If you were learning how to program it was windows that you were programming, not NLMs (Netware Loadable Modules). Writing for Windows95 was not too much different to writting for Windown NT. Subsequently Microsoft, like Linux later, had itself armies of programmers developing meaningful applications for their server platform to run. On the other hand, with only a few exceptions, Novell was left to develop its own applications for Netware servers. Jave popularity came eventually but Windows and Linux could run that too, so as I see it, Java provided no strategic advantage to Novell. --210.185.71.34 (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategic Mistakes ?? 

message: The artice suggests that Netware is a Network Operating System. However the Network Operating System article itself says that it is not. So what is it? --210.185.71.34 (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a NOS.  I correct the other article which seemed to contradict itself. 64.102.254.33 (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOS or Not NOS - then What? 

message: what is netware  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.97.96.37 (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novell_NetWare Aloysius-Fibonacci (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  netware 

message: An image used in this article, File:NetWare console screenshot.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:NetWare console screenshot.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Please see the bold or in  the following passage:
".. long name support (standard filenames were limited to 8 characters plus a three letter extension, matching MS-DOS) or Macintosh style files."
or / for? --Vssun (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long file name support 

message: See the section NetWare 4.1x and NetWare for Small Business: Novell begins to recover. I think the section title is inappropriate as the section following the above one (NetWare 5.x) says that NetWare 5 was released during a time when NetWare market share dropped precipitously. --Vssun (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novell begins to recover 

message: 1.) It would be nice to have a table of versions like wikipedia has for Linux and MS Software. There were differences from Netware/286 and Netware 2.15; Netware 3.0, 3.1, 3.11 (support for 4.0), 3.12 (supported 4.11), 3.2; Netware 4.0, 4.02, 4.1, 4.11, 4.12, 4.2; etc.  
2.) Note no native IP support in release 4.0; IPX encapsulated in IP until 4.2   
3.) Java console in 5 was very slow    
4.) Artisoft Lantastic but also ("LAN Manager client" or "MS Client" then) Workgroup Add-on for MSDOS and Banion Vines
5.) I added Novell's sale, "Novell, Inc." implies a robust independent company. Attachmate split Netware and SUSE Linux divisions (strongly supported by IBM; IBM devices like cash registers use SUSE images). Fate of Netware and support of Netware users is not guaranteed.   
6.) No note of Novell Small Business Server; the redirect comes here with no information but the Microsoft Small Business Server has its own article. Like MS SBS had lower cost of entry. 
Shjacks45 (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some qualms 

message: Which one was early NetWare running on? The article says 68000 in one place and 6800 in another. They're not at all the same thing. -- 89.182.220.207 (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not, thanks for spotting this. I have changed it to 68000 now, as this is more plausible, given that there was a CP/M-68K, but no CP/M for 6800 processors. Mark Dixon's blog () mentions a 68000 as well. Nevertheless, we need a more reliable source for that. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motorola 6800 or 68000? 

message: I've just done some edits, adding some references, and moving some material about to keep the story a bit clearer. More needs to be done though... Snori (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Tidy, get some refs

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on NetWare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20001205045800/http://www.informationweek.com:80/673/73iunet.htm to http://www.informationweek.com/673/73iunet.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on NetWare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160728221417/http://www.textmodegames.com/download/snipes.html to http://www.textmodegames.com/download/snipes.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061125020459/http://www.novell.com/documentation/ncs6p/pdfdoc/orionenu.pdf to http://www.novell.com/documentation/ncs6p/pdfdoc/orionenu.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050219225024/http://krakau-inc.com/199406.htm to http://www.krakau-inc.com/199406.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the section about NetWare v4, there was a statement:
 The upgrade was not without its flaws – initially NetWare 4 could not coexist with earlier versions on the same network because of incompatibilities.
That is not correct. I personally ran a mixed NetWare v3/v4 environment.
139.138.6.121 (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Netware 4.0 was very seriously flawed, not only in that respect. 4.01 followed very closely, fixing most issues. But without proper WP:RS, claims like that may be removed (can't find another source either). --Zac67 (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect statement Removed