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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JDN who wrote (27892)	2/17/2000 6:37:00 AM
From: Steve Lee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

I took that comment to mean that a multi-server Windows 2000 solution with a smaller number of processors per machine is more powerful than a Unix solution with a larger number of processors in 98% of applications. Because, using Windows load balancing, a number of more cost effective machines can complement each other, rather than paying the huge cost of a single Unix machine with many processors. And with the Windows solution, you get the benefit - in the case of a machine failure - of the other machines seamlessly covering for it. Did you take it to mean that the Windows 2000 solution is not as powerful but that 98% of customers don't need the power? From the article: "Microsoft disagrees. It says that it offers better value by selling machines for less, then offering software to easily tie the machines together and manage them from a central location"