[ILUG] Have you had your daily dose of reality?

[Lars Hecking]

> 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
 faster.

> 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 ...