You say: "The article makes no compelling reason to switch from other competitors to the new Windows2000 platform"
- One reason for switching from other competitors to Win2000 is because it is many times faster and more scalable as a server. True- the PCWeek NT4 numbers look confusing after reading the links you posted. However, Win2000 is much faster than NT4, and no OS is as scalable (able to handle so many requests per second). In addition, its programming model is a dream compared to alternatives. Anyone had the pleasure of using Visual Studio?
You say: "MSFT's Kerberos implementation breaks the MIT v5 standard..."
- I'm a customer, and I've never heard of or been concerned about this standard. Only results matter to me. Others may be more concerned.
You say:
"http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/jumps/0,4270,2411396,00.html And let us know how many of you are running hardware this advanced :)"
- Nearly every web server out there has hardware AT LEAST this advanced. The top system mentioned is a 4-way 500-MHz Zeon with 2 GB of RAM. If you run Linux on this machine, it doesn't EVEN come close in speed and scalability. If you buy a comparable Sun machine, you have to spend many thousands of dollars more for the software and many thousands more for the hardware. And still, it won't be as scalable. PCWeek can't be too far off on their report.
Conclusion for desktop users: Win2000 is a great upgrade if you're running Win95/98/NT and don't run old games. Twice the speed is claimed with 64 MB or more. Win95/98 crashes should be forever eliminated by NT/2000's protected mode.
Conclusion for servers: Win2000 is faster, much more scalable, so much better for programming, and much cheaper than any alternative (except maybe a free Linux). Claims are that it is more stable and secure at release than NT4 ever was. My experience has confirmed this. For any of the Win2000 benefits to have worth, security and stability must hold. Other beta customers confirm these do.
However, as you can tell, I'm biased.
David |
