>I'm sorry, but I can't concur with that. NT is not comparable when it comes to scalability and reliability.
I am not carrying a flag for NT, I am just reporting what I see happening as I visit many large government IT installations in my job. They are making it work, even in installations supporting 3,000+ users in very sensitive, mission critical areas. There is pain, but what they see is very significant progress in reliability. Scalability is another issue--but solutions to that problem are being implemented successfully, as well.
>>the infrastructure to support all of the functions that the NC does not do is not in place
>Can you explain this?
Sure...an NC puts greater demand on the network bandwidth than a fat client, as the NC is downloading more code and requiring response from a device (the server) across the network where data and other objects are stored; whereas a fat client is getting the programs, data, and other objects from its local drive, or a server on the LAN. I mean, that one of the great attractions to the NC--programs, data, etc. do not need to be managed on bunches of client PCs.
The storage, bandwidth and means of providing reasonable response times are not in place to support NCs in a satisfactory manner. I have heard the argument, which has some (a little) merit, that the savings afforded by the NC price will be offset by the cost of more infrastructure and the decreased productivity caused by slower response times.
I'm still long on SUNW.
(BTW, me and my family of four spent 5 great years in Germany 1986-1991. I would not trade that experience for anything.) |
