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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chic_hearne who wrote (105118)	6/29/2000 8:43:00 PM
From: ericneu	Respond to of 186894

I didn't mean that literally, because I know Win64 will be available. I just think no one will be dumb enough to use it. For one, with Microsoft's history, you can assume it will be full of bugs and crash a lot. --- The fact is that Windows 2000 is dramatically more reliable than any previous version of Windows. Win-64 is built from the same code base and should be equally reliable. NSTL (http://www.nstl.com/html/windows_2000_reliability.html) Windows 2000 Professional had a MTTF of 2893 hours or 72 forty-hour workweeks. Giga/Sunbelt (http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/news/external/gigasunbelt.asp) Nine out of 10 Windows 2000 Professional customers polled said the new Microsoft desktop was significantly more reliable than prior versions. And more than half?54 percent?indicated that it was 10 times or "an order of magnitude" more reliable than Windows 9.x or NT Workstation in early usage. Windows 2000 Server also scored well in initial usage; 75 percent of the customers said it crashed far less frequently?and delivered from two to 10 times better reliability than Windows NT Server. Digex (http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/profiles/csdigex.asp) IIS 5.0, now fully integrated into the Windows 2000 Server operating system, is a vital application at Digex. IIS 5.0 has demonstrated substantial improvements in both reliability and performance. "We have seen a 30 percent improvement in reliability with IIS 5.0," says Crawford. To Digex, enhanced reliability means that engineering talent can be allocated to new innovation projects. Says Ward, "it?s a win for the customer and a win for us." Etc., etc. - Eric

To: chic_hearne who wrote (105118)	6/29/2000 9:17:00 PM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

chic - I think I'll take your bet. CPQ, which ships the majority of Intel-based servers, also has the biggest share of Linux - 25%. While CPQ does not release exact numbers by OS, both CPQ and MSFT have used slides which show close to 50% of CPQ's servers shipping with NT or Win2K. On their run rate of better than a million servers a year, that's 500,000 NT or Win2K. Despite their being the largest Linux server vendor, they shipped less than 30,000 Linux machines. So Linux represents about 3% of CPQ server business as opposed to 50% for the MS products. Now let's look at IA64. CPQ has a volume 4-way product and, through their deal with Unisys, 16 and 32 way machines. Linux currently does not scale well above 2 processors in its base version, although some niche special (i.e. nonstandard) versions do better. But it seems unlikely that with no small IA64 servers, CPQ will see a shift upwards from 3% sales to 75% sales. I would be surprised if Linux gets even 5% in the first two versions of IA64 (merced and McKinley). CPQ is more likely to see Linux sales on the smaller Alpha machines, which have had a 64 bit Linux for many years. Think about it for a moment. CPQ's annual shipment of servers running the MS stack is greater than the whole installed base of Sun machines, over their entire history. Unless DELL decides for some reason to ship ONLY Linux on their IA64 offerings, and also does a lot better than they have in the 8-way market, where CPQ has 80% of the business, CPQ alone will make your prediction impossible. CPQ has already said they will not port Tru64 to Itanium. Clearly, Novell will not be running on IA64. Perhaps SCO? I just can't imagine where your assumptions come from. So let's go ahead and make that friendly wager.