CompuServe Thread

#Windows NT How to?

33 messages in this thread
#187938From: Don LandisAug 29, 1995 3:13 PM
I have a problem that I'm sure many out there also have and many here are in a position to offer many opinions. I have a Lantastic 5.0 network on 4 – 486-66's with 32megs of ram on each running peer to peer. I run windows 3.11 with win32's flawlessly fast and bug free on Lantastic. I have ample hard drive space on each machine. Most of my software is windows based except for 3DSr4 and animator pro, plus the PAR v1.5. Everything runs very well, flat bed scanner, modem, internet connection, sound boards etc. I have about $15000 in software investments and thousands in IPAS too. Here's the question: How would I best and most economically make the transition to Win NT on my network? Would I install the Windows server on one machine and the workstation on the other three? Would I install the workstation on one machine and win 95 on the other machines? How can I keep my network working with all this dos software investment? I spent the afternoon getting sticker shock on all the software upgrades, hardware upgrades and learning curve and frankly if I have to suffer a major setback in my current system, I can't see going ahead at this time where the gain will add questionable advances to my business product which is broadcast video production.
#187954From: alec jasonAug 29, 1995 5:21 PM
Don, I'm in pretty much the same situation as you. I've got six machines which have all worked fine on Lantastic 6.0 and I'm trying to find the most efficient way of making the transition. Based on two assumptions: 1. That Win95 machines can network to NT machines; and 2. That Network rendering with R4 must be done over the Lantastic network (not Win95/NT). Here's my tentative plan: 1. Install NT on one machine (with dual boot NT/DOS) Get familiar with NT. 2. Install Win95 on all machines. 3. Install NT on two P90's which are only used as render slaves. On these machines, I'll set up dual boot configurations (DOS/Lantastic and NT). This way I could still use them for R4 rendering and later for MAX. 4. Then I plan to keep using my DOS and Win95/31 applications on my two main machines and gradually migrate to Win95 and then to NT as the software and hardware allows me to. I think this will allow me to continue using all my current DOS and Win31 stuff and be ready for MAX. All this is very difficult stuff to deal with — particularly when I was just getting familiar with DOS and Win31. Let me know how you plan to do it; I'm sure you will come up with a very clever solution. Alec Jason
#187981From: Aug 29, 1995 6:52 PM
Alec and Don: Something else you might want to try: WfW includes a program to network under DOS, also. Perhaps you can run that instead of Lantastic, which will talk to an NT workstation. Then you would have very little disruption switching back and forth. Sounds like a good theory! :^) Greg Pyros
#187998From: Don LandisAug 29, 1995 9:51 PM
The theory has been tested here and as far as WFW is concerned it failed the acid test. I had so many problems with large file handling (eg. 1 meg size) that I just gave up, switched to Lantastic and all those problems went away. MS would never admit to those problems at the time saying it was my hardware but Rob. Metcaff wrote an article explaining my problem and the root cause. Then, after the published article MS acknowledged the problem with their network. To my knowledge they never fixed it. Most small businesses in this area ran into the same problems and this is why WFW never really caught on. We found Lantastic running windows was much faster and transparent than WFW. Alec brings up the big question. Does win 95 network with Win NT workstation without a network operating system using existing ethernet hardware. Just so much I don't know about this stuff, I decided to just ask…
#188129From: Aug 30, 1995 2:06 PM
Don: >> and as far as WFW is concerned it failed the acid test. I had so >> many problems with large file handling (eg. 1 meg size) What I was referring to was the WfW DOS software talking to an NT workstation. Would the problem still occur there? Enquiring minds want to know! Although I've been running Win95 for a while at home, at the office I think we're just going to skip that entirely and go straight to NT. I love dual boot. I love dual boot. I love dual boot. I love dual boot. I love dual… Greg Pyros PS – Maybe if I say it often enough I'll start to believe it!
#188292From: Ted BoardmanAug 31, 1995 8:48 AM
Greg, Don FWIW, I never could get Novell Personal to see or be seen by NT Workstation, either. -Ted Boardman
#188388From: Ralph F. FrantzAug 31, 1995 4:33 PM
>> I love dual >> boot. I love dual boot. I love dual boot. I love dual boot. I love dual… Hey Greg, what do you think about dual boot? <g> Now if I could just pay attention when I'm booting up so I don't miss the menu and go into NT when I want DOS. There must be a way to make DOS the default (for now!) …or make me pay more attention at boot-up<BG>. Ralph
#188476From: John SchmidtSep 1, 1995 12:12 AM
Ralph, >> Now if I could just pay attention when I'm booting up so I don't miss the menu and go into NT when I want DOS. There must be a way to make DOS the default (for now!) It's actually quite easy. All you have to do is to edit c:\boot.ini. It's a hidden file, but I'm sure you know how to remove the hidden attribute. Once you've got it open, just change the line that says "default". BTW; nice meeting you at the AMMEDIA party at Siggraph, though I can't blame you if you don't remember me, what with all the new faces. John (AEC Technologies)
#188532From: Ralph F. FrantzSep 1, 1995 10:13 AM
>> It's actually quite easy. All you have to do is to edit c:\boot.ini. It's a Thanks, John. I knew I read something like that. Now I don't have to look it up! >> BTW; nice meeting you at the AMMEDIA party at Siggraph, … and nice meeting you also. I do remember you and most of the others I met… it was the reason (among others) for being there. Ralph
#188794From: Tim Krego, [pro.image]Sep 2, 1995 6:02 PM
>>> Now if I could just pay attention when I'm booting up so I don't miss the menu and go into NT when I want DOS. There must be a way to make DOS the default (for now!)< >It's actually quite easy. All you have to do is to edit c:\boot.ini. It's a hidden file, but I'm sure you know how to remove the hidden attribute. Once you've got it open, just change the line that says "default".< You can do it that way, but the safer way is to use Control Panel -> System and set the default OS to load and the countdown timer can be changed.
#188808From: John SchmidtSep 2, 1995 7:05 PM
Tin, >> You can do it that way, but the safer way is to use Control Panel -> System and set the default OS to load and the countdown timer can be changed. Thanks for reminding me. You can also change the timer by editing the boot.ini file. One thing you can do by editing boot.ini that you *can't* do in Control Panel is to take out the extra NT VGA boot option, which I never use. I can always put it back in later if I need to. John
#189054From: Larry MintonSep 4, 1995 6:30 PM
Just remember that you need to turn the VGA boot option back on any time you mess with a new video card or with new video drivers. It would be a real pain to have to do a full reinstall just because your screen has turned to giberish. <<spoken as one who has been there, seen it, done it>> LAM
#189082From: John SchmidtSep 4, 1995 10:36 PM
Larry, >> Just remember that you need to turn the VGA boot option back on any time you mess with a new video card or with new video drivers. Yep. I've saved a virgin boot.ini from the beginning, just in case. John
#188793From: Tim Krego, [pro.image]Sep 2, 1995 6:02 PM
>Now if I could just pay attention when I'm booting up so I don't miss the menu and go into NT when I want DOS. There must be a way to make DOS the default (for now!) …or make me pay more attention at boot-up<BG>.< Go into Control Panel | System and you can select the default OS to boot. You can also change the countdown timer, I set mine to 5 seconds.
#188000From: Don LandisAug 29, 1995 9:51 PM
If you read the win95 box it says total compatibility with win 3.1 apps. If you listen to all the talk there is nothing but bugs doing this. I think the latest idea I had is to test the waters with a separate C: hard drive I can move the cable to for testing until I get comfortable. This way I can remain productive at work on familiar turf.
#187980From: Aug 29, 1995 6:52 PM
Don: For your uses, you don't need the NT Server, just Workstation. (Just saved you $500!). I would set up all the machines you plan to use with dual boot. This way you will be able to switch back and forth until all the IPAS and other hardware/software you depend on gets NT drivers. Are you running Lantastic on Ethernet cards (good) or Lantastic cards (bad). If Ethernet, you can use the same cards for NT. If not, you might look into switching now so that you can use the systems for both. What it looks like I will do here is dedicate a machine as an NT server and cross-link the drives with my Sun workstations. That way, we will be able to run either operating system on any computer, and find a server. I forsee times when I will have to have half of the machines rendering R4 with IPAS and the others rendering MAX at the same time. Who said this business was for the faint of heart (or pocketbook)? Greg Pyros
#187999From: Don LandisAug 29, 1995 9:51 PM
Some good solid advice! Thanks. I do have ethernet with Lantastic AI 5.0. I guess I use dual boot for the windows NT machine and run 3DS max and R4 on it. Will the NT boot talk to my other drives, ie recognize the AI network? What about using windows 95 with the network like I currently use win 3.11? I can see this thing is going to get real complicated. It's so nice right now because I can be rendering on any number of machines, split them off for other duties either windows or dos as desired and put them back on rendering as desired. I'm thinking that I may need to have a machine with two C drives to physically switch over to test the waters with win95 and not screw things up for work projects. I have room and this might be worth looking into. I appreciate the fact that you quickly saved me looking into the NT server software. I thought that I may need to redesign my entire network with NT. The server software costs $300 more here at CompUSA.
#188050From: david W. mennenohAug 30, 1995 8:38 AM
Don, I'm in a sort of similar position. I've got 1 computer, soon to be 2, with R4, Par etc. and haven't had any problems using WFWG 3.11. Las week, I put Win95 on and while it looks nice, and is faster at opening programs like Photoshop, or Elastic Reality. It chokes a lot and refuses to see the PAR. You can use the PAR under DOS just fine, but I can't use Razor Pro at all. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't even bother with Win95. I'm going out and getting NT, and just dealing with it. I'll do a dual boot and hopefully everything will be ok. DM
#188130From: Aug 30, 1995 2:06 PM
Don: >> Some good solid advice! Thanks. You're welcome! We're all still learning here, take everything you hear and read with the proverbial grain of salt! I an mot familiar at all with Lantastic, so I'm afraid I can't even guess at those questions! Greg Pyros
#188245From: EDWARD HARVEYAug 31, 1995 12:16 AM
Very usefull discussion, I appreciate it. Ed
#188873From: Don LandisSep 3, 1995 9:56 AM
To Greg, Alec and others; I spent some time reviewing the web pages at http://www.microsoft.com/NTserver/NTs2map? (I think that is where I was) They have flow charts, bullets and a series of web pages with features list explaining how to choose between 95, workstation, and server. It has the system requirements and what each will do for you in the charts. It is really quite helpful. Based on these charts I have now concluded that I should do the following with my network: Use my EISA platform for NT workstation which will still be the primary 3DS, PAR, Elastic Reality location. The version of NT Workstation should be the next one that uses the win95 shell and install it with dual boot. Due to the incompatibility issues currently admitted by microsoft for NT workstation it would not be advisable for ME to upgrade to MAX/NT on this machine until this version of NT is out. Instead, continue to run R4 with DOS and, maybe, win NT 3.51 workstation for learning curve. My other 3 machines should be upgraded to win95 as these machines are all hardware compatible and mostly software compatible. It is my understanding that I can run win95 network to replace the Lantastic AI operating system. I may need a DOS system dual boot to configure for 3DSr4 network rendering should win95 prove too taxing for 3DS network rendering. Currently, my needs are such that each of my rendering slaves is used 80% for other than 3DS renderings and therefore the dos boot for slave operation would be the exception rather than the rule. The above will allow me to make the upgrade to NT on all machines after the newer version of NT workstation is released ( I understand later '96) This will give me time to pay for some CPU/ram upgrades as well. In addition, there is still much unknown regarding the total picture of 3DS MAX. It is so radically different from my familiar 3DS r1 thru r4 that I question it's value to my current business needs. ie. If I need to model a client's logo for a TV commercial with a prorated value of, say $1000 in the commercial, how much is MAX going to improve my ability to do this over 3DSr4 and Elastic Reality? If I were you or Alan I. I could more easily answer this question. I would be jumping on it as quickly as possible. For me, 3DS supports my video editing suite; for you the video editing supports the animation. There is a difference in priorities here. I also have to consider spending the equal of 3DSMAX and new plugins vs. real time 3D DVE effects hardware such as the Alladin from Pinnacle. In video, clients don't understand or accept the concept of rendering video effects. If it can be done real time they want it that way. Based on those answers I got from the web site, I need the robustness of win95 now more than I'll need NT workstation even at the end of the year. So this makes the first step in my upgrade path to be three machines to be win95 with a dual dos boot for 3DS slaves. Now I can concentrate on the 4th machine for NT/MAX or whatever will come down the pike in '96. I think this has become the proper course for my set of special conditions for the balance of this year.
#188952From: Sep 4, 1995 12:16 AM
Don: Sounds like a well-thought-out upgrade path. Unless, of course, you see MAX when it ships and just tell yourself you have to have it! The best laid plans… Greg Pyros
#188967From: Doug GlasgowSep 4, 1995 1:50 AM
Don, if you don't mind, what "incompatabilities" are you refering to when you say microsoft admits to…? Just curious. Doug
#189009From: Don LandisSep 4, 1995 11:53 AM
Incompatibilities MS admits to are a general statement. If you go to their web site and follow the guidelines for selecting the operating system best suited for ones needs part of the process is to screen your current hardware for NT support. MS admits that with NT there are less compatibilities than win95. They also say that this is rapidly changing and eventually the two will be equally compatible with hardware.
#189144From: Doug GlasgowSep 5, 1995 8:54 AM
OK, Thanks Don. I wasn't sure if you were referring to a specific case or machine, or what. Thanks for clearing it up. Doug
#188068From: David RhotenAug 30, 1995 9:48 AM
Don: I ain't no NT expert, but unless your networking needs grow, I don't think you need the Server version. I believe the Workstation version will allow something like 5 users to be logged into it. Dave
#188220From: Don LandisAug 30, 1995 8:51 PM
>>I ain't no NT expert, Sounds like a triple negative.<G> >>I believe the Workstation version will allow something like 5 users to be logged into it. 5 users of what? more NT, WFW? WIN95? Lantastic? Novell? MS LANMGR? etc.
#188339From: David RhotenAug 31, 1995 1:56 PM
Don: Apparently, the connections number is 10. (I couldn't remember 5 or 10, so I chose to err on the lower end.) >>five whats? As I understand it, anything that you can get a driver for. In other words, the "workstation" version of NT essentially differs from the "server" version, in that it's not "optimized" for file-server operation, and there is essentially a 10-user limit (like buying a 10-user copy of Novell). Dave
#188242From: John SchmidtAug 30, 1995 11:36 PM
David, >> I believe the Workstation version will allow something like 5 users to be logged into it. NT Workstation allows up to 10 simultaneous network connections. John
#188340From: David RhotenAug 31, 1995 1:56 PM
Thanks, John. I vasilated (sp?) on 5 or 10, as I couldn't remember — and chose the smaller, just to be safe. Dave
#188493From: A. CarrerasSep 1, 1995 5:45 AM
Hey guy, I've been watching your posts for awhile and especially appreciate the tip on the Quantum Fireball. Got a 1 gig on order. Here's a solution that's working great for me. I got Win 95 and a small routing hub. Its a Linksys with a feature adaptor to run from a PowerMac which is linked with 4 P90's and I'm using RJ45 connectors. You can get a bnc type for LAN 5. Cost me a $100 plus $89 for Win 95. Win 95 gives you both Client and Server facilities Peer to Peer, in DOS you get Client and peer to peer in DOS only, the Win machines can't see the DOS peers. But the peers can access both Win 95 and NT with Netbuei. Win 95 is a smoker, in some ways even better than NT. The great thing about using a hub is that you can run both Lan 6 and Netbuei simulatenously. Its a little messy with mapping but I've got the Win 95 machines labled ANIM-A ANIM-B etc. and the Lan machines labled ANIM-1 ANIM-2 etc.. ANIM-A = ANIM-1 and so on. The drives remain the same, like ANIM-1c etc. With a multiple configuration like this you can do it all, its almost second nature now after my week of working with it, and the flexibility is just as good as if Win 95 machines could see the DOS clients. Now this is like being really wired man… but it works good and lasts a long time, just like that pink rabbit. <g> Ciao, Alex
#188628From: Don LandisSep 1, 1995 4:33 PM
Thanks for the info, Alex. I've filed it away for future reference.
#188692From: A. CarrerasSep 2, 1995 12:03 AM
Don, Likewise, thanks for the tip on the Fireball, its a blistering fast. <g> Can't beat the price either, at the cost of a Yost IPAS through Insight Tempe/Pheonix. Ciao, Alex