Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move
Turgon wrote: » Or rather Netware vs NT. Old article that is interesting to reflect on 12 years on. What comes over for me is how hands on we really needed to be back in the day and aware of how to optimise systems with scarce hardware features.Netware vs. NT
LucasMN wrote: » What is this Netware and NT you speak of? Sounds like gibberish to me. JK, but I'd bet most in their 20's on here never touched it...at least in a production environment. Heck, 12 years ago I was in 4th grade and most of the computers had Y2K OK! stickers on them.
sambuca69 wrote: » Why did companies really make the move to NT though? When I started in IT, NT was pretty much the standard already. Was it IPX, Netware licensing costs, ??
Turgon wrote: » NT became the standard. Netware was destroyed as a player in the NT stampede from 1995 onwards. Netware was superior on various technical levels, but the commercial drive to NT ran it over. Microsoft marketed their attack on NT cleverly. Get the product into the magazines the management read as they call the shots as opposed to the technical literature. MS was rubbish at internet integration but it was marketed aggresively at the audience that had their fingers on the purse strings, managers and executives as opposed to the technical crowd. The same could be said for netscape, a browser that had a pedigree but was run over by IE which became 'all the rage'. Marketing changes technology.
it_consultant wrote: » I think someone here once said "Microsoft shows up late to the party, but they bring a keg". NT networks were potentially all the things MS said it was and more and it makes sense if you are going to run mainly Windows servers to use Windows directory services etc.
it_consultant wrote: » You can say it out loud, a lot of the techs that lobbied for NT were simply not as good as the ones who lobbied for netware. That led to crappy networks. I still fix crappy Windows networks (there is no excuse for a crappy windows network nowadays) because there are a lot of techs who aren't very good.
it_consultant wrote: » I like the "easier to administer" and the response "do you really wan't someone that doesn't know what they are doing on your system?". This is the downfall of Windows servers, they convince bad admins they are better then they are.
it_consultant wrote: » I still fix crappy Windows networks (there is no excuse for a crappy windows network nowadays) because there are a lot of techs who aren't very good.
mikedisd2 wrote: » Can't agree with this at all. Who wants their job to be harder just for the sake of it? With this logic, everyone should use Linux based platforms and we can spend all day just trying to making the damn wireless card drivers work. Having ease of administration means I can put my time and effort to more challenging tasks. To be honest I couldn't be bothered reading much of this article; it's just a blatant soapbox Microsoft bash. I guess he was sore about his Novell stocks dropping in price.
Compare salaries for top cybersecurity certifications. Free download for TechExams community.