> Agreed. WIn2k is bulky and needs lots of RAM, fast processors
> and new equipment.
Maybe so. But, contrary to all the published benchmarks, people
who are actually running it on their machines claim it's a lot
> WIndows NT / 2000 are quite reliable at the end of the day.
> They don't just configure themselves though. It takes a lot of
> work to make a Windows NT based system work properly.
But W2k does not.
> I'm running several win2k advanced server boxes here
> and they've been up and running for weeks now without
> a reboot or a major problem. This is definitely progress
> from Redmond's finest >:-))
I was just talking to someone who attended the W2k launch in
Dublin yesterday. Someone with no particular symapthies for M$,
and not prone to being excited about computers either.
His comments: Scary. Fast. Absolutly seamless. If they ever get
it to run on any non-Intel hw, the other vendors are screwed.
No more reboots. Real plug and play, support for gobs of devices.
Excellent network and server control tools. And so on ...
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!