Of course, using character-cell terminals is probably not why you bought...
Windows 3.1
Windows 95
Windows 95 OSR2
Windows 98
Windows 98se
Windows Me
Windows NT 3.1
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows 2003

You bought it because it is almost impossible
to purchase a PC without Windows on it.
However, once you have it...

(However, WalMart, of all places, makes it possible...
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product_listing.gsp?cat=86798&path=0%3A3944%3A3951%3A41937%3A86798)

 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris
NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Mar 2005 12:40:51 CST
References: <xxp1xa3vbj9.fsf@usrts005.corpusers.net>
Message-ID: <42445b33$0$177$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>
Date: 25 Mar 2005 18:40:51 GMT
From: Doug McIntyre <merlyn@geeks.org>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Windows Services for Unix 3.5

Randy Yates <randy.yates@sonyericsson.com> writes:
>
> I'm thinking of installing this on my XP machine so that I can try
> porting the environment I've been using on Solaris for building my
> projects to the PC, and potentially encouraging our entire group to do
> the same thing.

> It would be good to hear any comments or experience any of you have
> on the suitability of this product to the task.


It depends totally on what APIs you are using, and are trying to do.

MS SFU tries to do at least 4-5 different things.

The first it does is install ActiveState Perl.

Then it makes Windows be a NFS server & client with some way basic
NIS client capabilites for UID mapping.

It also bundles a telnet service, so you could telnet into your
windows box (because, you know, all those Unix admins just admin
things via telnet ;)

Then it installs a stripped down MKS Tools (or it used to, sounds like
it has another package that does this now), so you can get an 'ls' or
'awk' and/or a 'ksh' that somewhat resembles a unix shell. Much like
the free Cygwin or uwin packages do.

Lastly, it gives you a CHM file documenting the already existing
Windows POSIX API...such as it is.

So, other than the NFS server/client code, much of what it does is
already available for free or from other sources. So, if you've
already tried Cygwin or uwin, you already have seen physically what
things look like.

 ..............................................................................

Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris
References: <xxp1xa3vbj9.fsf@usrts005.corpusers.net>
Message-ID: <d21l7u$ef2$7@anubis.demon.co.uk>
Organization: Piglet's Pickles and Preserves
Date: 25 Mar 2005 18:28:14 GMT
From: Huge <huge@ukmisc.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Windows Services for Unix 3.5

Randy Yates <randy.yates@sonyericsson.com> writes:
>
> I'm thinking of installing this on my XP machine so that I can try
> porting the environment I've been using on Solaris for building my
> projects to the PC, and potentially encouraging our entire group to
> do the same thing.
>
> It would be good to hear any comments or experience any of you have
> on the suitability of this product to the task.

* It won't run on XP Home.

* All the developers at my place use Cygwin.

-- 
       "The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
        [email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

       [Archiver's note:  to use the old telephone-network
       joke, "road" above should be "route".]

 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:37:41 +0100
To: shuford(at)cs.utk.edu
From: Kieran McDonnell <kieran(at)davien.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Regarding Windows 2000 information

On [a previous version of a web page at this site]
you state that the Windows 2000 telnet service will only accept NTLM.

This is in fact, not exactly correct.  The telnet client is set up
originally to only accept NTLM, but if you go into "configure" it:

 * (under Administrative Tools, choose option 3 for 
   "Display / change registry settings ...", then

 *  option 7 for "NTLM";
    it is set to 2.

    If you set this to 1 it will try for NTLM, and, if that
    is not available, default to plain text [password] entry
    as a normal Unix telnet service would request

    or if it is 0 it will not try to use NTLM at all,

and you will get something like this:
 
    Microsoft (R) Windows (TM) Version 5.00 (Build 2195)
    Welcome to Microsoft Telnet Service
    Telnet Server Build 5.00.99201.1
    login:

 
 
But then again, as the Win2K professional client only has ONE telnet
access license, it does still fall short of what you would really want.
;-)

Hope this helps,

Kieran McDonnell.


 ---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=--

To: <shuford(at)cs.utk.edu>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 14:28:26 -0700
From: Ron Hinds <ronhinds(at)csi.com>
Subject: NT as a terminal server


As part of the NT Resource Kit, Microsoft does ship a "telnetd" for NT 4.0.

Their FTP site even has a fix posted on it, dated 12/03/96, at 

    ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/bussys/winnt/winnt-public/reskit/nt40/telnetd

Here is the text of the README file:

====================================================================  
                          TELNET SERVER BETA
                             version 1.0
                Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Resource Kit
====================================================================  

INSTALLATION ERROR
==================

PROBLEM: 

The Telnet Server service does not install properly as described in
the TELNET.WRI documentation.  When adding the Telnet service, the
instructions state to select the Remote Session Manager.  However, the
only selection available is Telnet Service Beta (Inbound Telnet).

STATUS:

This issue has been addressed in an updated OEMSETUP.INF file for the 
TelnetD service.

RESOLUTION:

Obtain a copy of the latest OEMSETUP.INF for the Telnet Server:

1)  Connect to ftp://ntrk.microsoft.com/telnet_beta/beta.10/
      <OR>
    Connect to 
      ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/bussys/winnt/winnt-public/reskit/nt40/

2)  Download OEMSETUP.INF directly into your current Resource Kit Telnet
    directory.  This is typically C:\RESKIT\TELNET.

3)  Follow directions in the TELNET.WRI file.

If you do not have access to ftp, e-mail RKINPUT@MICROSOFT.COM with the
following text in the subject line:

    TELNET OEMSETUP.INF REQUEST

The RKINPUT feedback alias will reply with the corrected OEMSETUP.INF 
as an attachment.





I just acquired a Falco Data Products F5000 terminal at a swap meet, 
which I intend to try out on my NT machine using the telnetd from the 
Resource Kit. They also have a Remote Shell (presumably a DOS prompt, 
but I can't say for sure until I try it!) utility in the Resource Kit. 

Although the Resource Kit is extra, I highly recommend it for anyone 
interested in using NT, but especially if you want to do anything 
beyond the "Wizard's" very generic network configurations. Without it, 
setting up NT networking can be a real chore, even for those with lots 
of experience setting up networking for other platforms.

- Ron Hinds

 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


Newsgroups: comp.terminals,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking
Path: utkcs2!stc06.ctd.ornl.gov!news.he.net!uwm.edu!news.cse.psu.edu
      !news3.cac.psu.edu!howland.erols.net!newspump.sol.net!mindspring
      !cssun.mathcs.emory.edu!cs.utk.edu!duncan.cs.utk.edu!shuford
Followup-To: comp.terminals,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking
Organization: Computer Science Dept, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970411111126.18589A-100000@duncan.cs.utk.edu>
References: <334d635f.13566798@news.li.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:47:02 -0400
From: "Richard S. Shuford" <shuford(at)cs.utk.edu>
Subject: Character terminals and Windows NT (was: server for a VT240?)


In message <334d635f.13566798@news.li.net>,
   <see@message.net> (Eric) wrote:
>
> I administer a small network which has an x86 server running Windows NT 4
> (I know. We are working on moving to Solaris.). Anyway, a friend gave
> me a DEC VT240 which ... [appears to work]. 
> ...
> On the back of the terminal is a connection for a BNC cord [coaxial cable]
> which I plugged in.  The line goes up to the network hub and terminates
> there.  When I turn on the VT240, the hub doesn't seem to get anything from
> the connection as it has with a DOS box hooked up to the same connector,
> using the same wire. I fiddled with the terminal settings a bit, but
> nothing seemed to get the connection at all. 


You seem to have several difficulties.

I'm not surprised that your network hub did not recognize the signal from
the BNC connector on the back of the VT240's box.  It is NOT an Ethernet
connector; it is a VIDEO connector, for composite-video output from the
box to a CRT. 

The DEC VT2x0 series terminals were designed for only serial communication
(either RS-232-C or 20-mA current loop).  If you want the VT240 to talk on
a network, you plug it into a terminal server (which does connect to the
Ethernet). 


> Beyond getting the wires working, I am at a loss.  What kind of 
> software could be a server for the VT240 on NT? 


Another difficulty is that Microsoft did *not* design Windows NT in such a
way as to let easily you communicate with it using character-cell serial
terminals.

Another way to state this is that there is not by default a "telnetd"
server program in Windows NT for your terminal to talk to.  (This is
the opposite end of the connection from the telnet *client* program,
an emulator.)

Whereas any other commonly available multi-user operating system has this
functionality built in; since you are planning to migrate to Solaris x86,
this difficulty will disappear.  (By the way, you should check out the
mailing list at "http://www.eis.com/services/mlist.html".)

If you want Win-NT to be able to accept telnet connections from other
network devices, you have to buy a 3rd-party "telnetd" package and install
it on your machine. 

Vendors of such add-on products include

    Seattle Lab Inc.
    Ataman Software Inc.
    Reko AB Products

Web links to these are collected here:

    http://www.cs.utk.edu/~shuford/terminal/system_terminal_setup.html#winnt


    [  or get the  NT Resource Kit, as noted above  ]


 ...Richard S. Shuford   | "Dishonest money dwindles away, but he who gathers
 ...shuford(at)s.utk.edu |  money little by little makes it grow."
 ...                     |  Proverbs 13:11


   [P.S.  The BNC connector on the back of an IBM 3270-type terminal
    is the data connection to the 3274 terminal controller.  ...RSS]

 ---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=--

Newsgroups: comp.terminals
Path: utkcs2!stc06.ctd.ornl.gov!news.he.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu
      !news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-pull.sprintlink.net
      !news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!204.94.112.34
      !news.aloha.net!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!xylogics.com!usenet
Message-ID: <odpvtmn71d.fsf@donald.xylogics.com>
References: <5o2udc$3vk$1@news.pacifier.com>
In-reply-to: colinl@pacifier.com's message of 16 Jun 1997 08:44:28 GMT
Organization: Bay Networks, Inc.
Date: 16 Jun 1997 07:03:58 -0400
From: Jim Carlson (@xylogics.com)
Subject: Re: Basic Terminal Question


In article <5o2udc$3vk$1@news.pacifier.com>,
 colinl@pacifier.com (Colin Little)writes:
>
> I am putting together a simple network at my business.  I know a lot about
> computers, but I have never done a network before. This is the setup that
> I am going for, but I have no idea if it is possible.  I would like a
> pretty powerful server computer, running Windows NT connected to a hub via
> a 10Mb/s ethernet connection.  Two dummy terminals would be connected to
> this hub via this ethernet connection.  These dummy terminals would have
> good keyboards, good 15" or better monitors, but that's it.  They would
> get all their CPU power and hard disk space, RAM, etc. from the server
> computer.  Is this possible.  If not, why? And, what solutions are
> possible that could come close to this?  If this is possible, does anyone
> have any recommendations for what type/brand of hardware to buy.  Price is
> not really a consideration.  Thanks a lot.


Windows doesn't seem to work well in this configuration.  Its support
of standard remote protocols is rather weak.  Microsoft apparently
wants you to buy PCs for each work-station and buy a copy of Windows-95
to run on each PC.  MS doesn't seem to want to support anything more
reliable, such as a terminal.

Even if you do go the NT/95 route, there seems to be little in the way
of software to distribute the computing load.  A slow PC can't borrow
CPU cycles from a faster, but idle, machine on the same network.

I'd suggested instead a Sun or DEC/Alpha Unix system and X Window
System terminals (NCD and Tektronix come to mind).  These are quite
fast, reliable, scalable, and inexpensive.  They also use standard
protocols, so compatible products are available from a large number of
vendors.

-- 
James Carlson <carlson%xylogics.com>, Prin Engr   Tel:  +1 508 916 4351
Bay Networks - Annex I/F Develop. / 8 Federal ST        +1 800 225 3317
Mail Stop BL08-05 / Billerica  MA  01821-3548     Fax:  +1 508 916 4789

 ---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=--

Newsgroups: comp.terminals
Path: utkcs2!stc06.ctd.ornl.gov!novia!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!news.algonet.se
      !pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <33A75875.678D@rekoab.se>
References: <5o2udc$3vk$1@news.pacifier.com> <5o5tr0$e7a$1@shadow.skypoint.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: aristotle.algonet.se
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I; 16bit)
Organization: Reko AB
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 20:39:33 -0700
From: Christer Engstr=?iso-8859-1?Q?=F6m <rekoab(at)rekoab.se>?=
Subject: Re: Basic Terminal Question

Jamie Hoglund responded to a message:
>
> Colin Little <colinl@pacifier.com> wrote:
> : I am putting together a simple network at my business.  I know a lot about
> : computers, but I have never done a network before. This is the setup that
> : I am going for, but I have no idea if it is possible.  I would like a
> : pretty powerful server computer, running Windows NT connected to a hub via
> : a 10Mb/s ethernet connection.  Two dummy terminals would be connected to
> : this hub via this ethernet connection.  These dummy terminals would have
> : good keyboards, good 15" or better monitors, but that's it.  They would
> : get all their CPU power and hard disk space, RAM, etc. from the server
> : computer.  Is this possible.  If not, why?
>
>
> I know very little about Windows NT, but last I've heard, there is no
> support for character-cell dumb terminals. (they probably want you to
> run Windows 95 on a PC).
>
>   [snip]
>
>   Jamie
>
> ----
> http://www.skypoint.net/~jhoglund  - Linux, Perl & other fun stuff.

Colin and Jamie,

Depending on what you want to do, SerNet might be what you need.
Check out:

   http://www.rekoab.se/rekoprod.htm



SerNet can, among other things, be used as a Win NT terminal server,
toconnect async or net terminals to async or net hosts.

Regards,

Christer E, REKO

 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Path: utkcs2!stc06.ctd.ornl.gov!news.he.net!newsfeed.nacamar.de
      !howland.erols.net!wnfeed!204.127.130.5!worldnet.att.net!newsadm
Message-ID: <01bca85f$0943f7a0$2f6474cf@dewitt>
References: <97222.173354RICH@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>
Date: 14 Aug 1997 03:12:59 GMT
From: "DeWitt C. Potts" <DeWittCP(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: 3270 card and Windows/NT

Richard E. Lynch <RICH(at)wvnvm.wvnet.edu> wrote in article
<97222.173354RICH@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>...
>
> I have a fairly old 3270 card that I have been using to connect
> to our IBM S/390 system via a coax connection to a 3274 controller.
> This card was being used in a OS/2 system running Personal
> Communications for OS/2.
>
> For reasons unimportant, I recently got a new PC running
> Windows/NT and moved the 3270 card to the new system.  I also
> have a copy of Personal Communications for Windows and installed
> it on the NT machine.  However, when I try to configure the
> connection I get a message that a 3270 coax does not exist.
> Basically, this means that the software can't see the card.  I'm
> new to NT, but my understanding is that one of the design criteria
> was that software could not get to the hardware directly and had
> to go through a driver to access anything.  Does anybody know
> anything about this and is that what's going on?
>
> I can configure
> a TCP/IP 3270 connection so I do have host access.  However, when
> upgrading the OS (VM or MVS), TCP/IP, or dealing with a system
> problem I occasionally need a direct coax connection.  Am I out
> of luck with WindowsNT or is there some way around this problem?
>
> Any help would be much appreciated.  I started to ask this on one
> of the WindowsNT groups but I doubt anyone there would know what
> I was talking about.  This is more of a mainframe connectivity
> issue.
>
> Rich Lynch
> WVNET


Windows/NT is different from either OS/2 or MS-DOS in the hardware that
it will recognize.

Any adapters that you want to use--whether it is a modem or
ethernet or sound card or whatever-- **Must** be in the 'HCL' for NT.

(The HCL is simply the "Hardware Compatibility List.")

You can check with Microsoft as to whether your adapter card is in
this list.  My guess is that it is not in the list, and NT will not
recognize it.

DC Potts


 ---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=--

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Path: utkcs2!stc06.ctd.ornl.gov!pstcc7.pstcc.cc.tn.us!news.memphis.edu
      !nntp.msstate.edu!paladin.american.edu!auvm!IX.NETCOM.COM!wumpus
References: <199708111628.JAA09390@mail.sdsu.edu>
Message-ID: <33EF5988.1D975856@ix.netcom.com>
Organization: CPU
Sender: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@UA1VM.UA.EDU>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 11:27:21 -0700
From: Bob Halpern <wumpus@IX.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: 3270 card and Windows/NT

Ken Savage wrote:
>
> I also would like to know what folks are running under Windows/NT for 3270
> "hard wired" connnections as we are making the move from Windows for Work
> Groups to Window/NT.  Currently we use Wall Data's hardware (3270 Coax card)
> & software (Rumba).  The software works fine in NT (old 16bit & new 32bit),
> but the hardware doesn't (NT just hangs up).  Wall Data is no longer in the
> hardware business and doesn't provide support anymore :-(
>
> Any suggestions for replacement hardware/software ?  Doesn't have to support
> TCP/IP as we have  other means for that, but would be nice.
>
> Ken Savage
> San Diego State University
> +1 619/594-5432
> <ksavage@mail.sdsu.edu>


Try Attachmate, Hummingbird (McGill package), etc.

As you contact each one, ask if the firm knows of vendors that might
handle your cards.

I also believe that long, long, ago, Motorola had cards.


 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

INTERIX: a Unix-like environment that runs under Windows NT
http://www.interix.com/
(formerly called OpenNT--see additional discussion at
http://www.microtimes.com/168/unix.html)


 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Newsgroups: comp.windows.misc,comp.terminals,microsoft.public.win95.networking
Message-ID: <3505CBC6.7A1F@rekoab.se>
Organization: Reko AB
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 00:24:54 +0100
From: Christer Engstr\o\:m <che(at)rekoab.se>
Subject: Re: Is multi-user Win95 possible?


In message <35057203.4D79B60E@westol.com>, Jay Stern wrote:
>
> I'd like to use a couple of old computers (a 286 and a 386 using MS-DOS
> & Windows 3.11) as virtual machines on my Windows 95 Pentium.  I have
> them connected through a 10BASE-T network.
>  
> At work, I have 8088s, 286s, and 386s running a small DOS program
> letting them act as smart terminals on a Pentium OS/2 server using a
> software package from a company called Citrix.  Applications run from
> the terminals use the server's processor and drives, enabling the old
> computers to run sophisticated programming, and an app run from a
> terminal is almost indistinguishable from running it from the server's
> console... maybe a little slower.  All the terminal computers can also
> access a main outgoing modem on the server.
>  
> Can something like this be done with Windows 95 without spending a
> zillion bucks?   I think I remember reading somewhere that you can run
> a dumb terminal off a Win95 machine, but I've been known for having a
> faulty memory (kinda like one of my old computers).  If you can multi-
> task, why can't you multi-use?  OS/2 handles it OK.  I can't find any
> sources on if or how to do it.  Can anyone point me in the right
> direction?  This seems like a perfect solution for all those old
> dinosaurs
> lying about.              ... j
> --

Hello Jay,
 
Our terminal server SerNet (found at "http://www.rekoab.se/rekoprod.htm")
may be a step on the way to what you want to accomplish. It has async
and telnet terminal handling. If some of you are interested, we might
look into adding a pipe option to it. This will enable you to handle
stdin/stdout/stderr streaming, and thus be able to run a number of
console programs (probably not programs like edit though).
 
Regards,
 
Christer Engstr\o\:m, REKO.

(BTW. Price is not a zillion bucks)

 ---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=--

[Archiver's Note: Keep in mind that Windows-95 was not designed as
a multi-user operating system, and almost all Windows-95 software
requires a GUI user interface.  The Citrix remote-GUI software is
available commercially: http://www.citrix.com/ ]


 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


Newsgroups: comp.terminals
Message-ID: <360FE23B.30A7A9A7@GSC.GTE.Com>
References: <3609D282.ACE918F1@mail.humanities.ccny.cuny.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 19:23:39 GMT
From: "Scott G. Hall" <Scott.Hall(at)GSC.GTE.Com>
To: Router Wizard <walkd@mail.humanities.ccny.cuny.edu>
Subject: Re: NCD17CR

Router Wizard wrote:
>
> I'd like to be able to interface this terminal with my NT workstation or
> Server system. There is a BNC and Rj-45 in the rear of the unit but I
> don't know how ( or if I can) enter into a setup mode or even connect
> this terminal to a Windows based server.
> Any help is greatly appreciated from you professionals.
> Thanks.

What you got there is an X-Windows terminal.  Connect either the 10-base-T
or ThinNet ethernet connections to your favorite network connected to your
UNIX servers that have X-Windows client software on them (the terminal runs
the X server), and happily run any X-Windows software you want....


...Oh, you don't have UNIX.... MS Win-NT you say ....  umm, uhh, ... No.

--
Scott G. Hall
GTE Government Systems
North Carolina Systems Center
email: Scott.Hall(at)GSC.GTE.Com

 ..............................................................................

Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:09:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Richard S. Shuford" 
To: Router Wizard <walkd@mail.humanities.ccny.cuny.edu>
Subject: Re: NCD17CR

Sir Router:

The main problem is that you have an "X terminal", which speaks the
"open" X protocol--used by lots of different vendors of the X Window
system.

Microsoft's operating systems like to speak proprietary protocols.  
In the computer business, we used to call such products "closed"
until Microsoft redefined the meaning of "open systems" to mean
"Microsoft systems".

Having made that basic sad observation, I now observe that there are
lots of companies that have invented products for supporting remote
X clients for use with MS Windows.

However, you seem to be in academia, which means you probably were
hoping, "Can I do this sort of thing while spending no money?"
If that is the question, the answer is "no".

 ...RSS


 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 23:15:27 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
Newsgroups: comp.terminals
From: tcoffma@wpsr.com
Subject: NT Pretending to be Unix - VT220 Emulation

We want to send VT220 screens from an application (server) running on
Windows NT to a Telnet client also running on NT.

We will be developing the server application using Powerbuilder.

Do you know how we can do this?


 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Date: 7 Oct 1999 00:27:43 GMT
Organization: Columbia University
Newsgroups: comp.terminals
From: Jeffrey Altman <jaltman(at)watsun.cc.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: NT Pretending to be Unix - VT220 Emulation

In article <7tgl66$jk4$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,  <tcoffma@wpsr.com> wrote:
: We want to send VT220 screens from an application (server) running on
: Windows NT to a Telnet client also running on NT.

Can you be more precise about what you are looking to do?

NT does not have Telnet server built in.  Will you be building
your own Telnet Server in PowerBuilder or will you be purchasing
a third party telnet server and then running some application under
that Telnet Server after the NT Telnet client logs in?

    Jeffrey Altman * Sr.Software Designer * Kermit-95 for Win32 and OS/2


 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Newsgroups: comp.terminals
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:48:12 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home
Message-ID: <wUim5.4761$i5.116931@news1.rdc2.on.home.com>
From: Jake Taylor <jake.taylor@bigfoot.com>
Subject: Re: Digi Terminal Server (PortServer)

Thanks Scott for your reply.

I have ordered a Digi terminal server and am now waiting for it to arrive. I
have also found info of similar products.  Wish I had know of this solution
a few years ago.


"Scott G. Hall" <Scott.Hall@GD-CS.Com> wrote in message
<399975BE.1439A896@GD-CS.Com>...
>
> Jake Taylor wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone have any experience using the Digi - PortServer (Terminal
> > Server) on NT.?
> >
> > I have been looking at it to connect dumb terminals to telnet sessions
> > hosted on W2k professional.
>
> Microsoft's Windows-NT Terminal Server Edition directly supports DigiBoard's
> PortServer.  See document on DigiBoard's website:
> http://www.digiboard.com/digi.cfm?p=687432.lb.lib.content.ag.library.content.0003
>
> Also, look further into the product, as I think DigiBoard has drivers
> available for regular Win-NT and Win-2K:
> http://www.digiboard.com/digi.cfm?p=687432.pi.prd.00000015
>
> They talk about how the product can be shared among multiple hosts, and
> the hosts don't have to have the same operating systems.
>
> --
> Scott G. Hall General Dynamics Communication Systems
> ph: 919-549-1189 North Carolina Systems Center
> email: Scott.Hall@GD-CS.Com Research Triangle Park, NC   USA


 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Newsgroups: alt.os.citrix,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.pre-release,comp.terminals
Path: !news.shore.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news.idt.net!news-peer.gip.net
      !news.gsl.net!gip.net!newspump.sol.net!news.execpc.com!newspeer.sol.net
      !newstank.sol.net!newsops.execpc.com!posts.execpc.com
      !daily-planet.newsops.execpc.com!usenet
NNTP-Posting-Host: pern-1-173.mdm.mkt.execpc.com
Message-ID: <7k6fg0$efi@newsops.execpc.com>
References: <7jopk1$o48@newsops.execpc.com> <7k2urq$vta$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>
Organization: GeoLinks, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 16:08:21 -0500
From: "Phil Pucci" <pdpucci@execpc.com>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 + MetaFrame (vs. WinNT 4.x Terminal Server+MetaFrame)

Steve Caveney wrote in message <7k2urq$vta$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
> My only comment to this is that I find it disturbing that TS is only a
> "service" of W2000 server. But as you rightly comment, there will only be
> one SP since the kernel will either be in single or multi-user mode.
>
> As for Citrix. I am still playing with MF 1.8a, so can't comment.
>
>
>Phil Pucci <pdpucci@execpc.com> wrote in message
>news:7jopk1$o48@newsops.execpc.com...
>>
>> What improvements could Citrix customers
>> expect from Win2K's new _native_ "Terminal
>> Server" functionality (+ the new Win2K version
>> of MetaFrame) vs. the current Windows Terminal
>> Server + MetaFrame combination?
>>
>> The appeal on face value is that it is native
>> which suggests that it will not require different
>> service packs, etc.  It also suggests that
>> "normal" servers will be available to support
>> thin clients (in addition to their existing roles)
>> and/or for load balancing / fail over protection.
>>
>> Are there any "White Papers" (from Microsoft,
>> Citrix, others) that outline the architectural
>> differences?
>>
>> Are the beta testers allowed to comment?
>>
>> If so, is anyone able to comment here?
>>
>> If not, has anyone read any comments posted elsewhere?
>>
>> Thanks in advance!
>>
>> Phil Pucci
>> pdpucci@execpc.com


Why are you concerned that it is only a service?

When, roughly, do you think testers will be able to comment?

My big question centers on the architectural comparisons
of the old Terminal Server & MetaFrame vs. the new.

I would think that some scholar would have written such
an article for a WinNT publication (or for a marketing
boosting "white paper" for MSFT or CTXS).

pdp



 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Newsgroups: alt.os.citrix,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.pre-release,comp.terminals
NNTP-Posting-Host: planetx-1-11.mdm.mkt.execpc.com
Message-ID: <7k8c7v$6gs@newsops.execpc.com>
References: <7jopk1$o48@newsops.execpc.com> <7k2urq$vta$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>
Organization: GeoLinks, Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:25:12 -0500
From: "Phil Pucci" <pdpucci@execpc.com>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 + MetaFrame (vs. WinNT 4.x Terminal Server+MetaFrame)


A good fellow on the Citrix web-based forum put
me on to this article.  [by Mike Mathewson]

    http://www.thinplanet.com/opinion/protocols.asp

Subject:

   Thin Planet compares Citrix's ICA protocol
   to the new version of RDP that Microsoft
   will ship at the end of the year with Windows
   2000 Server.

If you see any other articles on the subject,
please post them here.

Phil Pucci
pdpucci@execpc.com


 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Newsgroups: alt.os.citrix,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.pre-release,comp.terminals
NNTP-Posting-Host: jsleckie.demon.co.uk:194.222.106.28
Message-ID: <929721453.6923.0.nnrp-10.c2de6a1c@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <7jopk1$o48@newsops.execpc.com> <7k2urq$vta$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>
            <7k6fg0$efi@newsops.execpc.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 16:56:05 +0100
From: "Scott Leckie" <outlook@NOSPAM.jsleckie.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 + MetaFrame (vs. WinNT 4.x Terminal Server+MetaFrame)

To be honest, there is not much difference between the Terminal
Services in NT4TSE and Win2000. The reason that TSE is a "special"
version is that it came along after NT4 had been released.

The actual guts of the services is a program called "termsrv.exe"
which runs as a service, as Steve says. There is little discernable
difference between the NT4 one and NT5 version.

In direct response to a couple of your points:
    >>> The appeal on face value is that it is native
    >>> which suggests that it will not require different
    >>> service packs, etc.  It also suggests that
    >>> "normal" servers will be available to support
    >>> thin clients (in addition to their existing roles)
    >>> and/or for load balancing / fail over protection.

Apparently NT4 SP6 and higher will support NT4 and TSE.

You should *never* consider using either an NT4 TSE, or a Win2000, for
"normal" server operations as well as thin-client supply.

Thin-client supply requires huge amounts of CPU, RAM and disk access
and is not compatible with SQL-Server, Exchange, etc. The recommendation
for Win2000 is that Terminal Servers do just that, and that Exchange,
SQL, etc each run on their own server. One potential benefit is that
at least you can start a remote session on one of these servers to
administer it.

Load balancing will still be offered by the Citrix MetaFrame product.

Fail-over will never happen because for fail-over to work the entire
session (CPU state, memory contents) would have to be replicated to
another server every second or so. This would mean replication 2Gb RAM
every few seconds for the larger servers which is well outside current
Intel technology.  Mainframe solutions, such as Sysplex, accomplish
this with separate dual-port memory systems accessed by multiple
processor units. We're a wee bit away from this with the Pentium!

Regards,
  Scott

--

Scott Leckie, KNS Scotland

Email : news@NOSPAM.jsleckie.demon.co.uk

<<Removed the NOSPAM. bit>>

<<snip>>


 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Newsgroups: comp.terminals
References: <9tvki9$bhb$1@news1.xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <0bec973fa43f382f@mayday.cix.co.uk>
Organization: Mayday Technology Ltd
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:51:50 +0000
From: Robert de Bath <rd104100@mayday.cix.co.uk>
Subject: Re: RDP server / Microsoft Terminal Server

On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Erik E. van Vliet wrote:
>
> Does anybody know if software exists to set up Windows 95 or NT Client as a
> server, using the Remote Desktop Protocol as implemented in Microsoft
> Terminal Server, Microsoft Windows 2000 Server and Microsof Windows XP?
>
> Other graphical terminals I tried all seemed very slow.
>
> (I like to access both my home pc's from work, one has XP on it, the other
> Windows NT.)
>
> Tnnx,
> B@RT


The Windows 98 CD has a copy of the 'RDP4' terminal services client.
(Search for tsclient).

There is a program on Windows 2000 (That is installed from the normal
Windows 'add/remove programs -> windows setup') to create floppies for
the Win-32 client that works on all >=95/NT4 and a 16-bit client for
the very old windows.

If you have problems with that, then VNC doesn't do RDP but is very easy:

    http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/

-- 
Rob.                          (Robert de Bath <robert$ @ debath.co.uk>)
                                       <http://www.cix.co.uk/~mayday>

 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

An interesting note appeared in this CRN discussion forum:

http://www.crn.com/Components/Talkback/tb-readpost.asp?tbID=1-25137&ArticleID=41140

from Mike
04/18/2003 2:09:21 AM

Ed R   Yes the thin client model did not work for Sun but that does not
mean it is not worth revisiting or was a total failure.

Microsoft and Intel did everything they could, to make sure something as
logical is making computing more efficient did not fly. If you do not
believe me just ask anybody other former employee of Citrix (which I am).

The thin-client computing model makes a lot of sense for most businesses
out there. It is highly efficient in things such as power consumption,
rollout time, support and application/os upgrade. Not to mention that
you can use a thin client anywhere from 5 to 7 years. Think of how many
PC's you would need to purchase in that time period. Oh and Sun Ray's
are fully warrantteed for 5 years. So if one breaks they just send you a
new one.

I also agree with Fred's point about too many people being too quick to
jump all over Sun for pricing. Check out Sun's site and compare their
pricing with this of Dell. In my opinion it is apples in oranges;
regardless the pricing is very competitive. Sun has 4 servers priced to
start under $5,000. 2 are dual processor capable.


 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

ewsgroups: comp.terminals
References: <29717f17.0407081248.6a26e4f0@posting.google.com>
Message-ID: <10esqh57vsleq88@news.supernews.com>
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 10:49:23 +0100
From: Martin <nospam@example.org>
Subject: Re: Windows XP and Citrix Metaframe

M. Collins wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I have a problem with a timeout on a Windows XP Pro SP2-RC2.  While
> logged on to a Citrix Metaframe XP TS, after about 2 minutes it times
> out.  My W2K clients do not have this issue.  I am using the latest
> client for Windows XP.  Has anyone else had this problem and found a
> resolution?  Any help would be appreciated.

This isn't the right NG for that question, but have you tried the same
client on XP Pro SP1?  If that works, then I'm inclined to believe that
SP2-RC2 has screwed up TCP keepalive functionality, which if true would be
a real pain.  In that case, you could usefully report the bug both to
Citrix and to Microsoft.

PS, what does Metaframe do that standard Remote Desktop Protocol (Terminal
Server) doesn't?   The RDP is well supported by the built-in client in XP,
and by the Rdesktop client for free operating systems.

 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

