Hi Paul. Here's what they need to do (one mo' time!)..................
Actually, if you want to know everything about NT and Novell, but were afraid to ask <g>, anyone can go here and get their "fill" of it:
computerworld.com
======================================================================
NetWare vs. NT: Will Microsoft Take Over?
A lot of ink has been used by the trade press to discuss the relative competitive positions of Novell's NetWare 4 and
Microsoft's Windows NT. In fact, if you have no actual experience in the real world, you might be led to believe that NT is
already the clear winner in the network operating system wars, and it is only a matter of time before Novell quietly folds its tent
and goes home. Is it all over but the shouting? I present my answers (what I believe will happen, not necessarily what will
happen) below, but first, a little perspective.
A LITTLE PERSPECTIVE
To effectively follow this discussion, you need to be aware of the history of the competition between Microsoft and Novell.
In about 1982, Novell (at that time it was called Novell Data Systems) introduced the concept of file service into the
microcomputer networking world. Other networking products in the early 1980s used a disk-server approach that allowed
sharing of hard disks but no access control at the file level. Novell's file service provided this kind of control, and high degrees
of performance and security.
Novell was far from a market leader. In fact, the company's products were used only because they worked-competitive
networking software could at best be described as "flakey." Novell's ShareNet (later changed to NetWare due to copyright
problems) was a high-performance proprietary operating system. Most other NOSs were really little more than DOS
extensions. ShareNet, and later NetWare, was often purchased with the disclaimer by the purchaser that it was a "tactical"
move: forthcoming products from Microsoft or IBM would obviously be the "strategic" direction.
In 1985, Microsoft introduced MS-Net. MS-Net was based on DOS 3.x and was the basis for numerous networking
products, including IBM's PC Network program and 3Com's 3+ program. Like the disk server products before it, MS-Net
was a set of DOS extensions, but with a twist: MS-Net provided true file service. Although it provided little in the way of
performance and even less in the way of security, the trade press touted it as the future of networking, further declaring the end
of the road for that little networking company in Utah.
They were wrong. Novell continued to improve and enhance NetWare, which gained market share and dominated the market.
In 1987, Microsoft and IBM introduced OS/2 ("OS/2 is the future," said Microsoft's Bill Gates). At that time Microsoft
introduced LAN Manager, 3Com introduced 3+ Open, and IBM introduced LAN Server, all based on OS/2. The trade press
again quickly declared Microsoft the winner, and the Gartner Group proclaimed that LAN Manager/3+ Open/LAN Server
would dominate the market by 1991. It was obviously all over for Novell.
Well, not quite. In 1987, Novell shipped NetWare 386 (later called NetWare 3), which was designed specifically for the Intel
80386 processor. In terms of features (but not performance), LAN Manager, designed for the Intel 80286 processor, was
somewhat competitive with NetWare 286. It was not, however, competitive with NetWare 3. Novell continued to maintain
market leadership.
Somewhere near the end of 1990, Microsoft ended its partnership with IBM. Instead, the company threw its application
support to Windows (which many, including most competitors, considered a dead product) and built a new, 32-bit advanced
platform, dubbed Windows NT, for "New Technology." NT was to be Microsoft's successor to OS/2, as well as its
networking platform. NT shipped in 1993, along with NT Advanced Server, Microsoft's replacement for OS/2 LAN Manager.
Also in 1993, Novell shipped NetWare 4. This long-awaited version of NetWare included Novell's new NetWare Directory
Services (NDS). NDS is a global directory of network services, providing, among other things, a single network login to access
multiple network servers. Unfortunately, the initial release had some problems, such as very few tools for migrating from
previous NetWare versions and no tools for redesigning the NDS structure once it was in place. Also, in designing NetWare 4,
Novell left the impression in the minds of many that the company was ignoring its traditional customer base in favor of courting
MIS managers in the Fortune 1000.
In addition, Novell hyped the product to the hilt and created a lot of disappointment when it couldn't deliver on all of its
promises. Needless to say, sales of NetWare 4.0 were less than spectacular. Also in the early 1990s, Novell acquired other
companies at a rapid rate. Novell expended a lot of capital and energy with these acquisitions, and has since sold off or
announced its intention to sell most of them.
NOVELL'S PROBLEM
Novell has never been a great marketing company. The company has been able to prosper based on the technical excellence of
NetWare. Microsoft, on the other hand, is a great marketing company. Not only has it kept the attention of the trade press, the
industry, and the public at large, it has converted many of the traditional Mac and Unix academic enclaves to its cause.
Microsoft is also successful in getting the attention of corporate management, telling the company story effectively to CEOs and
CIOs.
Unfortunately for Novell, technical excellence does not guarantee success in the marketplace. Many excellent products fall by
the wayside in favor of products that are technically inferior but have better marketing or greater public support. Technically,
NetWare 4.1 is, in my opinion, vastly superior to NT as a network OS, and contrary to Microsoft's claim, file and print
services aren't a commodity. Microsoft has incredible marketing muscle, and can dominate the trade news with stories of NT
successes over NetWare. What you don't hear a lot about, however, are those companies that switched back to NetWare
4.1-and there are quite a few of them. One reason you don't hear about this is that few people in large organizations are willing
to admit mistakes, and implementing one OS then switching back to another is usually viewed as making a mistake. Also, the
cliche "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" has transmuted into "Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft."
Will Novell and NetWare be shoved aside by Microsoft and NT? No one knows. The answer, I think, really lies with Novell.
In other words, Novell controls its own destiny.
If Novell is going to survive, here are some things it needs to do:
1. Novell needs marketing. I'm not talking about ads in magazines or newspapers, or even about editorial space,
although they could definitely take a lesson from Microsoft in this area. Microsoft's public relations agency does a very
good job of holding the hands of writers and editors. It is often difficult to find the right public relations and editorial
contacts at Novell.
What I am really talking about here is developing and maintaining mind share. In the 1980s, Novell did an excellent job
of building a reseller channel. Even Microsoft's Steve Ballmer complained that it was easier to buy NetWare than a
Slurpee because there were 12,000 Novell resellers and only 9,000 7-Eleven stores. Novell also built mind share with
its Certified NetWare Engineer (CNE) program.
Microsoft, however, has learned well from Novell, and created its own certification program-and recruited many of
Novell's resellers. At the same time, Novell has done a poor job of creating presence with corporate management and
academia. Microsoft, on the other hand, has done an excellent job.
2. Novell needs to vastly improve its efforts at working with writers and editors. While Microsoft holds a lot of influential
editors' hands, Novell often makes it difficult for the press.
3. Novell needs to rethink its reseller program. Let's face it, networking has gotten much more complicated in the last
few years, and there is a big difference between selling and installing LANs for mom and pop operations and selling and
installing corporate, enterprise networks. Novell needs channels skilled at both.
4. Novell needs to gain back the workgroup network market. Novell lost a lot of momentum at the lower end of the
market. It can't afford to lose any more. This is where NT is making the biggest inroads. For example, some NetWare 3
users are switching to NT instead of NetWare 4 because they believe that integration with Windows on the desktop will
be easier. Novell has to understand that its business grew from thousands of small networks. The company will continue
to prosper only if it serves this market, in addition to the corporate, enterprise market. In other words, Novell must
create an easy entry point for new clients, something NT's ease of installation has provided to Microsoft.
5. Novell needs to get the attention of corporate CEOs, CIOs, and IT managers. Unlike departmental network
administrators, these people often make decisions based on what they read and hear, and they often have little or no
hands-on experience with network operating systems. The Microsoft marketing machine has done an excellent job of
selling to this group.
6. Novell needs to do a better job of telling the NDS story. NDS has incredible potential, even for small networks, but
few people outside of Novell understand what it is all about. Unfortunately, I think that few people in Novell's marketing
group understand it either. Because Novell can't tell the NDS story well, Microsoft can get away with calling NT's
domain name service a directory service. In many people's minds this puts NT on an equal footing with NetWare 4.1.
7. Novell needs to aggressively respond to erroneous published information. I think Novell really needs to unleash its
staff and allow them the freedom to respond to magazine articles, letters to the editor, etc. Novell muzzles its staff,
allowing only official spokespersons to comment for the company. This may prevent some erroneous (or embarrassing)
information from leaking, but it also allows inaccurate information to go unchallenged. Believe me, I have had enough
discussions with present and former Novell employees to know that many don't feel free to speak out to defend the
company. This kind of fear is destructive and has to go if Novell is to survive.
8. Novell needs a renewed sense of direction and a mission statement that inspires its staff. Novell, with NDS, has the
potential to do this. NDS can embody the vision of universal resource access. It is a very different approach from
anything else commercially available today. For the same reasons, Novell can seize the high ground with NDS. NDS will
also create new needs-once customers and the industry understand its potential-if Novell learns how to tell the NDS
story. By telling the NDS story with passion, Novell can also catalyze strong feelings and give people something they
want, not just something they will accept.
Creating a vision and taking the high ground means, however, actually having vision and the ability to see the high ground. John
F. Kennedy did it the day he was inaugurated as president of the United States when he said, "Ask not what your country can
do for you-ask what you can do for your country." With that one statement he catalyzed the feelings of millions of Americans.
A cause and a vision are simple, but they take substance to accomplish. If Novell cannot generate a cause and a vision, it will
quickly become another Microsoft conquest. nv
Patrick H. Corrigan is the founder and senior consultant/analyst of The Corrigan Group, a consulting and training
company located in Tigard, OR. He can be reached via the Internet at pcorrigan@corrigan-group.com or via
CompuServe at 75170,146. You can also visit The Corrigan Group's Web site at corrigan-group.com.
====================================================================== |
