This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Banyan VINES" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(June 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Banyan VINES is a discontinuednetwork operating system developed byBanyan Systems for computers runningAT&T'sUNIX System V.

VINES is an acronym forVirtual Integrated NEtwork Service. LikeNovell NetWare, VINES's network services are based on theXerox XNSstack.

James Allchin, who later worked as Group Vice President for Platforms atMicrosoft until his retirement on January 30, 2007, was the chief architect of Banyan VINES.

VINES ran on a low-level protocol known asVIP—theVINES Internetwork Protocol—that was essentially identical to the lower layers of theXerox Network Systems (XNS) protocols. Addresses consist of a 32-bit address and a 16-bitsubnet that map to the 48-bitEthernet address to route to machines. This means that, like other XNS-based systems, VINES can only support a two-level internet.

A set ofrouting algorithms, however, set VINES apart from other XNS systems at this level. The key differentiator,ARP (Address Resolution Protocol), allowed VINES clients to automatically set up their own network addresses. When a client first boots up, it broadcast a request on the subnet asking for servers, which responds with suggested addresses. The client used the first to respond, although the servers could hand off "better"routing instructions to the client if the network changed. The overall concept resembledAppleTalk's AARP system, with the exception that VINES required at least one server, whereas AARP functioned aspeer-to-peer. Like AARP, VINES required an inherently "chatty" network, sending updates about the status of clients to other servers on theinternetwork.

Rounding out its lower-level system, VINES usedRTP (theRouting Table Protocol), a low-overhead message system for passing around information about changes to the routing, and ARP to determine the address of other nodes on the system. These closely resembled the similar systems used in other XNS-based protocols. VINES also includedICP (theInternet Control Protocol), which it used to pass error-messages and metrics.

At the middle layer level, VINES used fairly standard software. Theunreliable datagram service anddata-stream service operated essentially identically toUDP andTCP on top ofIP. VINES added areliable message service as well, a hybrid of the two that offered guaranteed delivery of single packets.

Banyan offered customersTCP/IP as an extra cost option for owners of standard Vines servers. This extra charge for TCP/IP on VINES servers continued long after TCP/IP server availability had become commoditized.

At the topmost layer, VINES provided the standard file and print services, as well as the uniqueStreetTalk, a globally consistentname service. Banyan has a version of StreetTalk that ran natively on aWindows NT server.^[1] Using a globally distributed, partially replicated database, StreetTalk could meld multiple widely separated networks into a single network that allowed seamless resource-sharing. It accomplished this through its rigidly hierarchical naming-scheme; entries in the directory took the formitem@group@organization (similar to the naming format used in the XNS Clearinghouse directory service:item:group:organization). This applied to user accounts as well as to resources likeprinters andfile servers.

VINES client software ran on most earlier PC-based operating systems, includingMS-DOS and earlier versions ofMicrosoft Windows. It was lightweight on the client, and hence remained in use during the latter half of the 1990s on many older machines that could not run other networking stacks. This occurred on the server side as well, as VINES generally offered good performance, even from mediocre hardware.

With StreetTalk's inherent low bandwidth requirements, global companies and governments that grasped the advantages of worldwidedirectory services seamlessly spanning multiple time zones recognized VINE's technological edge. Users included gas and oil companies, power companies, public utilities—and U.S. Government agencies including the State Department,Treasury Department,Department of Agriculture,Department of Health and Human Services, andDepartment of Defense.

TheU.S. State Department was an early adopter of the VINES technology. Able to take advantage of the then high-speed56k modems for telephonic connectivity of the developed world to the limited telephone modem speeds of 300baud over bad analog telephone systems in developing countries, VINES linked embassies around the world. VINES also features built-in point-to-point and group chat capability that was useful for basic communication over secure lines.

By the late 1980s, theUS Marine Corps was searching for simple, off-the-shelf worldwide network connectivity with rich built-in email, file, and print features. By 1988, the Marine Corps had standardized on VINES^[2] as both itsgarrison (base) and forward-deployed ground-based battlefield email-centricnetwork operating system.

Using both ground-based secure radio channels and satellite and military tactical phone switches, the Marine Corps was ready for its first big test of VINES: the1990-1991 Gulf War. Units were able to seamlessly coordinate ground, naval, and air strikes across military boundaries by using the chat function to pass target lists and adjust naval gun fire on the fly. Ground fire support coordination agencies used VINES up and down command channels—from Battalion-to-Regiment through Division-to-Corps and Squadron-to-Group to Aircraft Wing-to-Corps, as well as in peer-to-peer unit communication.^{[citation needed]}

This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(July 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

3Com's journey into network operating system development began in the late 1970s. In 1979, they introduced their first network operating system, called 3+Share. It allowed multiple users to access files and resources on a shared server. However, it wasn't until 1982 that 3Com released 3Server, which was a significant step forward.^[3]

3Server was designed to work with 3Com's Ethernet hardware and was aimed at creatinglocal area networks (LANs). It provided file and print sharing capabilities, enabling multiple computers to access common resources like printers and files. It operated on the XNS (Xerox Network Systems) protocol suite.

Over the years, 3Com continued to refine and improve its network operating systems. In 1985, they introduced 3+Open, which added support for third-party hardware. 3+Open was a significant advancement in 3Com's network operating system lineup. Introduced in 1985, it expanded on the capabilities of their previous offerings by providing support for third-party hardware and software. This allowed 3+Open to work with a wider range of network devices and systems, increasing its compatibility and appeal to a broader audience.

3Com's contribution to Microsoft's network and server software capabilities is closely tied to their collaboration on the development ofLAN Manager. LAN Manager was Microsoft's networking software that aimed to provide file and print services for PCs connected in a network. In the late 1980s, Microsoft partnered with 3Com to integrate 3+Open's networking capabilities into LAN Manager.

This collaboration led to the creation of LAN Manager 2.0, which was released in 1989. This version of LAN Manager incorporated technologies from both Microsoft and 3Com, resulting in improved networking capabilities and compatibility. It enabled Microsoft to strengthen its networking offerings, making it a more competitive player in the network operating system space.

Microsoft's experience with LAN Manager laid the foundation for their subsequent development ofWindows NT andWindows Server operating systems. The knowledge and technologies gained from working with 3Com's networking solutions contributed to the evolution of Microsoft's network and server software capabilities, helping them become a dominant force in the networking and server industry.

For a decade, Banyan's OS competitors,Novell and Microsoft, dismissed the utility ofdirectory services. Consequently, VINES dominated what came to be called the "directory services" space from 1985 to 1995. While seeming to ignore VINES, Novell and eventually Microsoft—companies with a flat server or domain-based network model—came to realize the strategic value of directory services. With little warning, Novell went from playing down the value of directory services to announcing its own:NetWare Directory Services (NDS). Eventually, Novell changedNDS to mean Novell Directory Services, and then renamed that to eDirectory.^[4]

ForWindows 2000 however, Microsoft includedActive Directory, an LDAP directory service based on the directory from itsExchange mail server.^[4] While VINES is limited to a three-part name, user.company.org, like Novell's NDS structure, Active Directory is not bound by such a naming convention. Active Directory features an additional capability that both NDS and VINES lack, its "forest and trees" organizational model. The combination of better architecture and with marketing from a company the size of Microsoft doomed StreetTalk, VINES as an OS, and finally Banyan itself.

By the late 1990s, VINES's once-touted StreetTalk Services's non-flat, non-domain model had lost ground to newer technology, despite its built-in messaging, efficiency and onetime performance edge. Banyan was unable to market its product far beyond its initial base of multi-national and government entities.

The company lost ground in the networking market, and VINES sales dropped. Banyan increasingly turned to StreetTalk as a differentiator, eventually porting it to NT as a stand-alone product and offering it as an interface toLDAP systems.^{[citation needed]}

Banyan continued to operate a closed OS. This required hardware manufacturers to submit hardware and driver requirements so that Banyan could write drivers for each peripheral. When moreopen systems with published APIs began to appear, Banyan did not alter their model. This made it difficult for client-side support to handle the explosive growth in, for example, printers. As competitors began to adopt some of VINES's wide area networking protocols and services, manufacturers were less inclined to send a unit to Banyan for VINES specific drivers when competitors allowed them to write their own.

Dropping the Banyan brand forePresence in 1999, as a generalInternet services company, the firm sold its services division toUnisys in late 2003 and liquidated its remaining holdings in its Switchboard.com subsidiary.

• 1984: Banyan VINES 1.0
• 1989: Banyan VINES 2.1
• 1990: Banyan VINES 3.0
• 1991: Banyan VINES 4.11
• 1992: Banyan VINES 5.0
• 1994: Banyan VINES 5.50
• 1997: Banyan VINES 7.0

• Banyan VINES at Bamertal Publishing

• 1984 software
• Directory services
• Discontinued operating systems
• Network operating systems
• UNIX System V
• X86 operating systems
• XNS based protocols

• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata
• Articles needing additional references from June 2016
• All articles needing additional references
• All articles with unsourced statements
• Articles with unsourced statements from August 2009
• Articles needing additional references from July 2022