Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DavidIsMyName who wrote (35719)	12/20/1999 12:37:00 AM
From: Charles Tutt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

"However, as you can tell, I'm biased." That sums it up, IMHO.

To: DavidIsMyName who wrote (35719)	12/20/1999 9:26:00 AM
From: PJ Strifas	Respond to of 74651

Hello David, <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). I beg to differ on scalability - NT has never been able to match the throughput of Linux, Solaris and NetWare. NetWare 5.1 has been benchmarke at twice the speed of Windows2000 on lesser hardware! We'll see how this plays out in the future. Also, the tests were done in a pure Windows 2000 environment which even MSFT knows will not be the standard installation but the exception. Look for most companies to run "mixed mode" networks for the first year or two - in this instance any gains (which can not be applied universally at this point) will be lost to the slower NT 4.0 boxes on the network. Currently there are less than a dozen certified apps that run on Windows2000 which means most critical systems will still run on NT 4.0. What about those apps developed inhouse? There will be no benefit for these until the code is re-written to take advantage of Windows2000. Again, will you spend that money now or later when you rev your program? <In addition, its programming model is a dream compared to <alternatives. Anyone had the pleasure of using Visual <Studio? MSFT has done admirably in creating this environment and true to form it maintains a current lead. MSFT has finally gotten the right idea in that it is holding companies to higher, stricter standards in the Logo Certification for Apps. This will go a long way to making the system even more "stable" than the previous version. I feel this was long overdue. <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 should be - this is the system that AUTHENTICATES you to the network. It's the first layer of security! 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. And how many of the MILLIONS of copies MSFT reports it sells of NT server are used ONLY for websites (or companies with large budgets)? I work as a consultant (& technical trainer) and most small and medium-sized companies who have implemented Windows NT AND IIS don't run such hardware. Fortune 500 companies...yes - but MSFT market has always been the small and medium-sized, one location companies as it's backbone. Can you honestly go into these locations and make a case for $15,000 hardware to gain benefits from a $600 software upgrade? <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. I agree - this OS on the desktop is the premier OS for just about everyone at this point. Windows 95/98 SHOULD and will be retired (IMHO) once we see some service packs :) <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. Here's where we disagree :) Windows2000 will enjoy a healthy lead on all rivals in the development arena (which by the way is probably the most important aspect). Let's face it, without developers, it doesn't matter HOW good your OS is. More stable, more secure.... than NT 4.0 - yes. I'll agree to that. But there are other alternatives which are much less prone to "unauthorized access" than MSFT's product. I have links for that as well :) Cheaper? I'm not sure about that - check into the pricing of a product called Internet Connector - last I heard it was priced at $1995 per server. It's the software you need to buy if you are going to use IIS for a public website. Tack that onto the price of the server and it's not so cheap anymore. What you should do for comparision is take equal amounts of money and have "teams" build a server based on products from Microsoft, Novell, Sun/Netscape and Linux. Then test the performance of these "setups". Just for the record, I don't give Ziff-Davis a pass on their "unbiased" reporting. It was about a year or so ago that they were accussed of printing stories planted by a marketing consultant of a large software company. Regards, Peter J Strifas (PS - we haven't yet touched upon Active Directory which I feel may one day be something wonderful but right now, can match the scalability, performance and manageability of competing products).