Home

News

Forums

Hardware

CPUs

Mainboards

Video

Guides

CPU Prices

Memory Prices

Shop



Sharky Extreme :


Latest News


- Outdoor Life: Panasonic Puts 3G Wireless Into Rugged Notebooks
- Averatec Launches Lightweight Turion 64 X2 Laptop
- Acer Fires Up Two New Ferrari Notebooks
- Belkin Debuts Docking Station for ExpressCard-Equipped Notebooks
- Logitech 5.1 Speaker System Puts Your Ears At Eye Level
News Archives

Features

- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with ATI's Terry Makedon
- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with Seagate's Joni Clark
- Half-Life 2 Review
- DOOM 3 Review
- Unreal Tournament 2004 Review

Buyer's Guides

- September High-end Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- September Value Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- October Extreme Gaming PC Buyer's Guide

HARDWARE

  • CPUs


  • Motherboards

    - Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 Motherboard Review
    - DFI LANPARTY UT nF4 Ultra-D Motherboard Review

  • Video Cards

    - Gigabyte GeForce 7600 GT 256MB Review
    - ASUS EN7900GT TOP 256MB Review
    - ASUS EN7600GT Silent 256MB Review
    - Biostar GeForce 7900 GT 256MB Review





  • SharkyForums.Com - Print: A Case for Windows 2000

    A Case for Windows 2000
    By Revilre October 28, 2000, 04:06 AM

    I couldn't imagine life without win2k now. I still have to keep WinMe around though for gaming and for DVD watching (since no softDVD programs will do 4-channel downmixes in win2k). Of course I just deleted Winme because I forgot why I was keeping it around.

    But as it stands, I am downloding two huge files, browsing with MSN Explorer (I am not a newbie either and I use it !). Installing MS Office 2000 Premium from one CD to one hard drive and installing Photoshop 6 from another CD to another hard drive. All the while I have PlexTools and ICQ open in the background.

    Only slows a bit because the MS install is a hog. And thats not a lot.

    So join me in the Dual-boot Win2k/WinMe army...

    By BloodRed October 28, 2000, 04:37 AM

    Win2K is nice. I've got it on my second computer so my wife can play The Sims, and I can share it's internet connection. It's on 24 hours a day, the only time I ever have to reboot it is when I want to play with the hardware setup. I almost fell out of my seat the first time I installed something and didn't have to reboot! That was a shocker. I dual-boot Linux and Win98SE on my main system. Win98SE is still alive only because it plays all my games, if I'm not playing a game I'm running Linux.

    By Revilre October 28, 2000, 05:51 AM

    Well Linux just doesn't cut it for me

    Actually for a web server Win2k with IIS5.0 is better than Linux with Apache. Anyway in my opinion. Its faster thats is for sure.

    By BloodRed October 28, 2000, 06:03 AM

    quote:Originally posted by Revilre:
    Well Linux just doesn't cut it for me

    Actually for a web server Win2k with IIS5.0 is better than Linux with Apache. Anyway in my opinion. Its faster thats is for sure.


    Whoa, post that on a Linux forum and you'll get about a million replies from pissed off Linux groupies. I've never ran Apache or Win2K w/IIS5.0, so I can't comment from personal experience, but you're the first person I've ever heard make that statement. I just read another post on this forum a little while ago where a guy said Win2K w/IIS totally sucked on his company's web server compared to Linux(w/ Apache, I *think*). Have you run them both yourself?

    By Revilre October 28, 2000, 05:20 PM

    Yep, I've run both Linux and Win2k. And IIS5 on win2k and Apache in Linux, Win2k, and FreeBSD.

    You just gotta know how to set Win2k/IIS up right. How to tune its performance options.

    IIS5 is so much more maneageable than Apache. Niether has anything the other doesn't, except IIS has ASP support and apache doesn't. As far as security, apache might be a bit more secure. But, because of the nature of apache, configuring it to be secure is much more difficult and easier to miss something.

    Both take some expirience to use properly, and the unfortunate thing is that many more people have expirience with Apache only. Then when they try IIS, without any expirience they think it sucks because they can't do anything with it. For those of us that have used and configured both of them, we can objectively compare them. For me IIS is considerably faster. I can notice a difference between them in thier speed even when accessing them from the server. Apache just gets the data out slower.

    The other point is that IIS requires a much more powerful machine. Anything less than 256MB and it bogs, where as Apache can run on 16MB.

    But to each his own.

    By jtshaw October 28, 2000, 08:08 PM

    I totally disagree with Windows being faster or better at being a web server then Linux. We switch from linux to Win2k at work for a week and all we got was trouble. IIS was very instable and it started to slow when any more then 50 people were hitting the site. IIS actually stopped more then a couple times that week. Hotmail and Google are other evidence of apache and linux's speed. Hotmail was virtually flawless when it was first created running on bsd and once they went to Windows it crashed time and time again. Google is easily the fast search site on the net, getting millions of hits, and it is another example of a bsd web site. We might have just been unlucky at work but I am willing to bet if you ask the majority of web server companies (the likes of Hercules electric) they will perfer linux or bsd.

    quote:Originally posted by Revilre:
    Yep, I've run both Linux and Win2k. And IIS5 on win2k and Apache in Linux, Win2k, and FreeBSD.

    You just gotta know how to set Win2k/IIS up right. How to tune its performance options.

    IIS5 is so much more maneageable than Apache. Niether has anything the other doesn't, except IIS has ASP support and apache doesn't. As far as security, apache might be a bit more secure. But, because of the nature of apache, configuring it to be secure is much more difficult and easier to miss something.

    Both take some expirience to use properly, and the unfortunate thing is that many more people have expirience with Apache only. Then when they try IIS, without any expirience they think it sucks because they can't do anything with it. For those of us that have used and configured both of them, we can objectively compare them. For me IIS is considerably faster. I can notice a difference between them in thier speed even when accessing them from the server. Apache just gets the data out slower.

    The other point is that IIS requires a much more powerful machine. Anything less than 256MB and it bogs, where as Apache can run on 16MB.

    But to each his own.

    By blppt October 28, 2000, 08:27 PM

    quote:Originally posted by jtshaw:
    I totally disagree with Windows being faster or better at being a web server then Linux. We switch from linux to Win2k at work for a week and all we got was trouble. IIS was very instable and it started to slow when any more then 50 people were hitting the site. IIS actually stopped more then a couple times that week. Hotmail and Google are other evidence of apache and linux's speed. Hotmail was virtually flawless when it was first created running on bsd and once they went to Windows it crashed time and time again. Google is easily the fast search site on the net, getting millions of hits, and it is another example of a bsd web site. We might have just been unlucky at work but I am willing to bet if you ask the majority of web server companies (the likes of Hercules electric) they will perfer linux or bsd.


    Well, if google vs hotmail is any comparison, i'm gonna have to agree. Hotmail is ass slow even with a T1 connection most of the time, and Google is so fast its almost like accessing something on my school's 'intranet'.

    By blppt October 28, 2000, 08:27 PM

    My mistake posting twice.

    By Revilre October 28, 2000, 09:08 PM

    How often does Anandtech go down? As far as I have found NEVER. Anandtech is hosted all in win2k with IIS5.

    These forums have gone out at least once a week, if only for a short time. Now whether or not that was for maintainence I can't say. So that is not a real comparison.

    IIS5 needs about 512MB or more of RAM to run efficiently.

    By jtshaw October 30, 2000, 03:50 PM

    I am sure there are some cases where Win2k has worked just fine. I am willing to bet if you ask 9/10 or maybe even 99/100 web hosting companies what they prefer they would say a unix os like linux or bsd because you don't need quite as beefy systems for high volume sites and they have been the mark of stability for years. Plus they don't have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars in licensing fees to Microsoft in the process. One of windows problems as I see it is they waste valuable resources on there servers for programs the server doesn't really need to run, like all the GUI resources for one.

    quote:Originally posted by Revilre:
    How often does Anandtech go down? As far as I have found NEVER. Anandtech is hosted all in win2k with IIS5.

    These forums have gone out at least once a week, if only for a short time. Now whether or not that was for maintainence I can't say. So that is not a real comparison.

    IIS5 needs about 512MB or more of RAM to run efficiently.

    By wozster October 31, 2000, 07:12 AM

    I'll have to agree with ya about Win2k except the whole ME thing, I'd rather boot into mandrake 7.1 or Win95b, ME is the buggiest thing i've ever seen.

    By gamigin October 31, 2000, 08:16 AM

    Just wanted to say that Apache server don't need 512mb ram to run good *tease*
    I have not yet tried out IIS5 but Apache runs much smoother than IIS4.
    I still prefer Linux servers before nt/win2k servers. It's all really a question about configuration and tweaking.

    By Sol October 31, 2000, 09:03 AM

    yo, dual boot win2k and win98. however, i never use win98 anymore. I havent had any problems with win2k and I am about to just delete win98 in all.

    By 100%TotallyNude October 31, 2000, 03:59 PM

    quote:Originally posted by Revilre:
    The other point is that IIS requires a much more powerful machine. Anything less than 256MB and it bogs, where as Apache can run on 16MB.

    Right. What does that say about the two products? Plus: Microsoft is only NOW addressing thier stability issues with Win2K whereas Linux (and fBSD) has always had a good stability record. And I have yet to hear anything new on the security front, although in old news security was supposed to be another issue that M$ addressed with 2K. OpenBSD has had security in mind since ITS inception, btw, which was about 3 years ago. A default installation of oBSD is more secure than a tweaked 2000 I would bet.

    By Shreck November 01, 2000, 04:12 AM

    Okay, this has been said in a great many places, a great many times, in a great many ways, but here it is again.

    I am not here to defend Microsoft, I do not love them, I don't even work for them. But here's perspective #1: Bill Gates is in this for a profit. Perspective #1a: Bill Gates is not the antichrist. Now let me explain my perspective.

    If you assume that the above is true, which you should being a rational life form, you realize that Bill Gates and his little company are not that much different than you and me (except the placement of the decimal point in the annual earnings). You realize that in the short term for Bill it was best to emphasize on features and compatibility rather than networking and security (which was mostly impractical in ms-dos and windows days); and later find that to protect his long term interests to stabilize the OS since it's feature rich environment was causing 3rd party conflicts that were getting blamed on the OS. So Bill started working more on things like Networking and Security, as well as general stability.

    Simple fact: You cannot get free support from Microsoft (except in short software warranties). Next fact: The paid support you get from Microsoft is the most knowledgable and well trained of any software vendor I have dealt with. Bar none.

    Fact: Microsoft has a lot of bugs with their OSes and their other software. Your kidding, you mean RedHat doesn't? Who the hell do you think your fooling? Try looking for a fix for a bug in the way your sound card works in Linux. Let's time you on how long it takes to come to that fix. I'll find a sound card that has the same problem in NT. Wanna make a bet who can find the fix faster? Look at Microsoft's website! You've got more complete documentation on MANY 3rd party products than their own vendors do! I have been nothing short of impressed with the way Microsoft has handled itself in the realms of support. I commend their management in their efforts to make a very competitive company. Though they could have done without a few of the monopolistic practices.

    Sure, you can run linux better on a 486 than win95 can, but who'd want to? It still runs like crap, if your talking about a heavy use site... However, if you really know how to optimize NT/2k AND you really know how to optimize Linux, when choosing a big web server the choice will not be simple. I you are publishing anything from a non-Apache server, you will have no choice but to go with IIS. However if all your web apps and data can reside on your web servers, then go linux. It'll be a little bit faster, and it'll save you about 0.5% of your total system cost (my estimted saving in software alone on switchover to linux for my company). And that is the end of the deciding factors, only the bigger ones. Sound worth it?

    Listen, I get sick of ignorant Microsoft bashing because it's "in". Yeah, Microsoft's a big bunch of a$$holes. Yeah, if the world was perfect the other 99.9% of the population would be able to figure out how to run linux too. But until the ratio flips in San Jose, I think you'd better step off Microsoft's back for delivering what the public asks for.

    Sorry, that's my rant. Let the flames proceed.

    By BloodRed November 01, 2000, 05:41 AM

    Flame! Flame!

    Heh, I had to. You have some pretty good points. I do respect MS, one way or another they've done a lot for computers. I guess the reason I prefer Linux at home is that I've pretty much gotten bored with Windows. I still have Win98SE and Win2K Pro running on my LAN, for various things, but I use Linux for my main system now. I've gotten to the point where I'm pretty much bored with Windows because I've got it figured out. Whenever something goes wrong, I know how to fix it(or at least where to start looking). Linux is interesting because it's different, and it's more complex to operate. I guess I'm just the type that's not happy unless I have something to tinker with.
    I don't run any servers, so I can't really argue about which OS is better in that respect. I agree with you on MS's support though, they do know what they're talking about.

    By Sol November 01, 2000, 09:56 AM

    Yeah, I agree, one reason I want to get Linux loaded up is to toy around with it. I am interested in its workings and I have 4 years of programming on UNIX thanks to my school. Something interesting about Linux that I really would like to get into. not to knock MS, I am very happy with win2k, but I can have the best of both worlds.

    By jtshaw November 01, 2000, 10:10 AM

    In responce to Shreck, since quoting the whole thing would take up too much space....

    Linux and even BSD definitly have bugs, EVERY piece of software has them. There probably is better tech support for MS products. However, you saying that all the software for running a Win2k Advanced Server is only .5% more? The company I work for was looking in to Win2k Advanced Server and we found the OS alone was going to cost us $4500 with licensing. We use Slackware for our os and apache for the server and paid less then $100 (albeit with no support contract...we don't need one though).
    If you are talking about running a high volume server, mail, web, file, ftp, or anything else BSD and some distro's and configurations of linux (such as Slackware) can out perform a Windows server on lessor hardware and have proven stabilitly. I say proven stability because Windows2k hasn't been around long enough and judging by the horror stories I have heard from others it definitly doesn't have a great track record for stability and reliability.
    I am not going to knock Windows2k Professonal because it is a great workstation OS with a wide variaty of software packages availible for it. However, when it comes to running dedicated web servers, file servers, mail servers, routers, ect. linux and bsd have it beat hands down.

    One thing I really have to say that I think will probably fuel a bigger flame war is that linux actually has more support for hardware then windows does. You can run linux on virtually every computing platform: x86, IA-64, Sparc, ColdFire, Alpha, PowerPC, DragonBall, and the list goes on and on. It has support for thousands of different devices for different style platforms and configurations. It can be run on anything from a i386 with 1MB of RAM to 8-way PIII Xeon's and 32-way Alpha servers with gigabytes of RAM. Linux wasn't originally designed to be a multi-media OS. It lacks support for 3D accelerators, sound cards, and games. This is a definit weakness of the OS that is being delt with and linux improves 10 fold in these aspects every month.

    I am now done flaming this topic:P

    By BloodRed November 01, 2000, 10:31 AM

    Speaking of hardware that will run Linux, have you seen the new Linux wristwatch that IBM just invented? It runs a version of Linux with X11 graphics, and performs basic PDA functions. It's still experimental, but it works.

    Let's see Win2K do that!

    By -BiG_GunS- November 01, 2000, 11:51 AM

    Replying to Shreck:

    I'll find a sound card that has the same problem in NT. Wanna make a bet who can find the fix faster? Look at Microsoft's website! You've got more complete documentation on MANY 3rd party products than their own vendors do!

    Alright. You wanna make it interesting? :-)

    Here's my situation with Windows 2000, and why I'm stuck using WindowsME.

    I am not sure what it is, but some piece of hardware in my system is causing Windows2k to go freaking crazy. It hates it. I thought I knew what it was, but...it's possible that it's something entirely different (confusing, ain't it?). Here is my list of hardware:

    * NVidia Geforce 2 GTS 32mb DDR
    * Sigmadesigns realmagic Hollywood Plus DVD
    Decoder
    * p.o.s. 56k modem (don't worry about it, don't even use it...just keep it in there just in case)
    * Aureal Vortex 2 OEM board
    * Netgear 310TX 10/100 NIC

    Okay, so I install 2k, start installing drivers. To save time I install everything without rebooting (but I've done this in 9x w/o problems), so I can't pin down exactly what is the culprit.
    What happens is, upon booting into Windows, I got these messages:

    "STOP: c00026c {Unable to Load Device Driver}
    \??\c:\windows\system32\win32k.sys device driver could not be loaded.
    Error Status was 0xc0000221"

    and the other kind was:

    "* * * STOP: 0x0000007A (0xE1E1AA60, 0xC0000185, 0xA00A8627, 0x02B50860)
    KERNEL_DATA_INPAGE_ERROR
    * * * ADDRESS A00A8526 base at A0000000,
    DATESTAMP 3942e223 - win32k.sys"

    Both of these involve win32k.sys, and both would automatically reboot my system, and one error would pop up each and every time. I could boot into safe mode, and I could boot into safe mode with network support once, then never again. I screwed with it for a day, gave up, formatted, and re-installed WinME. Other than that reason, I was a 100% supporter of Windows ME.
    I think it's my sound card because Aureal closed its doors before producing a decent win2k driver, and you have to go through a pretty strenuous process to get it to work, here's a link to the site telling you what to to: http://www.vortexofsound.com/drivers/drv_v2wdm.htm

    Just look at all that crap! The card would never work right for me in Windows 2000. I then commenced to going into safe mode and 'disabling' the sound card. Still rebooted with same error messages. I tried 'uninstalling' the sound card driver, still no go. I couldn't figure it out. Maybe one of you geniouses could. (?)

    By blppt November 01, 2000, 04:44 PM

    quote:Originally posted by BloodRed:
    I guess I'm just the type that's not happy unless I have something to tinker with.

    Same here! That is actually the only reason i ever bothered with Linux in the first place. I have no need to run a server of any kind, and anything i needed to do, could be done in Windows, and usually a lot easier. But even though it gets frustrating, i must admit i must get some kind of enjoyment out of messing with the linux kernel, or why would i have persisted after so many lousy distributions?

    By blppt November 01, 2000, 04:46 PM

    quote:Originally posted by BloodRed:
    Speaking of hardware that will run Linux, have you seen the new Linux wristwatch that IBM just invented? It runs a version of Linux with X11 graphics, and performs basic PDA functions. It's still experimental, but it works.

    Let's see Win2K do that!

    Well, win2k wont be on a watch, but it will power a console capable of 150 million polygons/sec. Lets see Linux do that! ;-)

    By jtshaw November 01, 2000, 05:38 PM

    Linux could probably do that with some work (maybe to much work:P), it powers some Tivo units and some DVD players already

    quote:Originally posted by blppt:
    Well, win2k wont be on a watch, but it will power a console capable of 150 million polygons/sec. Lets see Linux do that! ;-)

    By TolTas November 01, 2000, 07:13 PM

    -BiG_GunS-:
    I am not sure what it is, but some piece of hardware in my system is causing Windows2k to go freaking crazy. It hates it. I thought I knew what it was, but...it's possible that it's something entirely different (confusing, ain't it?). Here is my list of hardware:

    * NVidia Geforce 2 GTS 32mb DDR
    * Sigmadesigns realmagic Hollywood Plus DVD
    Decoder
    * p.o.s. 56k modem (don't worry about it, don't even use it...just keep it in there just in case)
    * Aureal Vortex 2 OEM board
    * Netgear 310TX 10/100 NIC

    Okay, so I install 2k, start installing drivers.

    To save time I install everything without rebooting <---

    (but I've done this in 9x w/o problems), so I can't pin down exactly what is the culprit.

    ^
    |
    This a probably your problem, i know that win2k does NOT like it at all if you install nvidia's Denator 3 drivers w/o a reboot...This and vortex2 drivers work fine if you follow the instructions, so that's why the messages come up even after you remove the device. My guess is that your installing the nvidia drivers and the DVD decoder drivers w/o rebooting is messing things up(they both deal with video output), because you not letting win2k get to put the proper things into system32.ini, try this and see if it works

    Good Luck, btw i've seen almost identical hardware in a win2k box and it has worked fine, so dont think that you cant get win2k to work!

    By Revilre November 01, 2000, 07:26 PM

    I like tinkering with stuff. But if you have to get stuff done, win2k gets it done faster (in regard to system setup). And in my expirience its been very stable. I am willing to bet that most the win2k horror stories you hear are from people like the ones at my dads office. They are trying to configure a win2k server... and not a single one of them has ever used win2k or read a single book on it.

    By Sol November 02, 2000, 08:09 AM

    I think a lot of win2k problems happen becuase people dont research their hardware much and they dont get updated drivers. I know I had a problem with my sound card and the only thing it really needed was updated win2k drivers.

    By stoo November 02, 2000, 09:27 AM

    A case for Windows 2k?

    I recommend a large, metal one. With a padlock, to make sure no-one steals it.

    By jtshaw November 02, 2000, 10:26 AM

    I think you are probably correct on this. People assume that Win2k server setup will be just like it was on the NT4.0 servers. But it isn't, hardly anything is the same from what I hear. I have however known a few people to get it configured so that everything works but then IIS will just stop serving websites and stuff for some reason, out of the blue, without changing anything.

    quote:Originally posted by Revilre:
    I like tinkering with stuff. But if you have to get stuff done, win2k gets it done faster (in regard to system setup). And in my expirience its been very stable. I am willing to bet that most the win2k horror stories you hear are from people like the ones at my dads office. They are trying to configure a win2k server... and not a single one of them has ever used win2k or read a single book on it.

    By Shreck November 02, 2000, 04:06 PM

    Let me reply to Mr. Big Guns first.

    As far as diagnosing which particular piece of hardware is causing the problem, boot Win2k in "Last known good configuration". Then install the drivers for the miscellaneous pieces of hardware one at a time (when it prompts you to reboot, do it). You'll probably find exactly which piece of hardware is causing the problem. If you can't figure out how to fix the problem let me know and I'll try to point you in the right direction.

    Mr. BloodRed: I can't agree with you more. I like Linux myself; I find it fun to try to figure out the quirks in a new system, a new software package. I, however, have not the time to make this work on my computers. I have an old computer that I have RedHat 6.2 on and I kick it once in a while when I get bored. I have no issues with your desire to do something different, something new.

    Mr. JTShaw, however, I do have some things I'd like to respond to. As far as my .5% quote, I should have stated myself more clearly. The cost I was referencing was the TCO: the cost of the software that actually runs on the few servers a Linux server could actually replace (file, print, e-mail and web), when compared to the total system cost of hardware, OS AND the support people involved in setting up and keeping such servers running. This TCO was generated from another firm almost identical to ours who went the Linux route for a few of their servers (suggestion from one of their employees). They eventually had to abandon the project due to the lack of vendor support for the OS and lack of necessary features compared to NT. I'd put any one of my NT boxes up against a Linux server in a TCO comparison and you'll find that in performance, setup and maintenance my systems will rock. Maybe that's me being ****y, and maybe I'm wrong. But I have yet to be proven so (in this one issue. In the rest of life, I'm wrong a lot ).

    Now to address the stability/reliability issue. When you look at those people who report such horror stories, how much experience do you think they have with the OS, hmm? Played with Win2k for a couple weeks in beta, now you want to deploy it system-wide and integrate it with your 20 network apps? And you gave yourself a whole week to prep for it? These are the types of people who come screaming out of these situations. Granted, most of these people were actually told to do this by their superiors, but the fact is I have done several investigative diagnoses of large networks and what went wrong on a large upgrade (or even small ones in critical situations) and why it ended the way it did. It is ALWAYS an oversight of someone due to time constraints and/or bad planning. There are too many weekend hobbyists building servers out there not investigating the repercussions.

    One other thing, universal support. Hello? Yes you can get Linux to run on the computer in your '84 Tempo, but you have to port it yourself! Yes you can get Linux to support the newest Video Card, but YOU have to write the damn driver! Or hope that the one Jim-Bob wrote works for you! True, some of the most mainstream vendors are now releasing beta-drivers with their new hardware for Linux, but this is the exception, not the rule, and is usually not compatible with more than a few Linux Distros.

    All in all, there is a place for Linux, but it is still in the back, running standalone as a web server or on a network in a tech-heavy company that happens to be filled with little Linux gurus. NOT on a network with complex demands. Not on any kind of design workstation. And definitely not on your average Joe user's machine. Linux just doesn't have the features yet.

    You know, I need a lower stress job. Linux really shouldn't get me this excited.


    By Shreck November 02, 2000, 04:09 PM

    quote:Originally posted by Shreck:
    Maybe that's me being ****y, and maybe I'm wrong.

    Hehe, I love these filters. It's supposed to say c.o.c.k.y. hahaha

    By jtshaw November 02, 2000, 04:32 PM

    I am interested to know what other kinds of servers besides File/Printing/and Web you see running on a regular basis? Are talking about NT Domain servers (which linux does quite nicely in my office might I add) or something else I am just not thinking of right now?

    That filter thing is helarious btw:P

    I guess my Win2k experience is pretty limited but I have to say with my little experience it is great for workstations but absolutely can't cut it for web servers (especially) or file servers or any other server I have ever used. I have been wrong before so it is possible I am wrong here but I haven't seen Win2k do anything that made me feel differently yet.

    quote:Originally posted by Shreck:
    Hehe, I love these filters. It's supposed to say c.o.c.k.y. hahaha

    By Shreck November 02, 2000, 06:25 PM

    quote:Originally posted by jtshaw:
    I am interested to know what other kinds of servers besides File/Printing/and Web you see running on a regular basis? Are talking about NT Domain servers (which linux does quite nicely in my office might I add) or something else I am just not thinking of right now?


    Yeah, things like SQL, accounting packages, and specialized software that is either database driven or industry driven. And how about a groupware app? There are a great deal of applications that cannot be replicated onto a Linux box.

    As far as web servers, I will re-iterate that that is only in an environment where you can run inedependent of application servers. If you run an integrated intranet with your application servers, you will be S.O.L. with Linux. Same for your web based extension of services from your normal buisness network. Linux will not talk to your other systems.

    No question that in an unchanging, segregated environment Linux is awesome. Runs on your Grandpa's WWII pocketwatch. But hey, it's got no business in business.

    YET. I can't wait for the day it's ready.


    Contact Us | www.SharkyForums.com

    Copyright 1999, 2000 internet.com Corporation. All Rights Reserved.


    Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46

    previous page
    next page





    Copyright 2002 INT Media Group, Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. About INT Media Group | Press Releases | Privacy Policy | Career Opportunities