Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux

[Hammer]

For those who are interested in the 'Windows VS Linux' saga...

Statistics from Netcraft

quote]A number of sites were seen to be switching to Server 2003 before its official launch but, in the three months since the launch the number of active sites has increased by over 300 per cent, Netcraft reckons, and now stands at 88,400. And around 6,000 of these have sitched from Linux, - quote from 'The Inquirer' [/quote]

[Hammer]

…

The Windows system arcitecture is totally unsuitable for running a long term server. It may have protected memory, but it still has the old shared address system problems.

Shared memory architecture is only applicable for Windows 3.11/Win16 and NT kernel level services.

Different sides will argue different points of view.  

As this link illustrates http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Uptime+Windows+2003&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N

[Hammer]

and what proof do we have that netcraft is a 100% unbiased and independent source of this information....

To keep things into perspective refer to  http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/07/12/nearly_2_million_active_sites_running_freebsd.html

[Hammer]

@KennyR, regarding uptime for the top ten servers, refer to
http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/reports/performance/Hosters?tn=june_2003&reverse=0

Linux and WinS2K are fairly close in regards to uptime. Personally, I’ll use FreeBSD as my server OS.  

Refer to http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/07/12/nearly_2_million_active_sites_running_freebsd.html
(For the rise of the quiet achiever FreeBSD)

[Hammer]

@opi
a. No one has forced you to read the news topic.

b. Via Linux/MOL, one could run SoftWindows 95. SoftWindows uses the official MS’s Windows source code. Careful with any of the generalisations.

[Hammer]

Not after my experience.. I really doubt i could manage over a year uptime even if i let that box stand there doing nothing...

Don’t forget the sample size...

[Hammer]

re b) it's emulator, not the real thing(tm)

Note the use of the official MS Windows source code i.e. recompiled for the PowerPC processors i.e. for Win16/Win32 API acceleration.  The said product is not quite like SoftPC (classic whole box JIT emulator).  

The techniques involve with SoftWindows 95 is better than Amithlon/ AmigaForever/WinUAE (which is just a classic JIT emulator). SoftWindows 95 is fundamentally similar to MorphOS’s Abox (i.e. native APIs layers with emulated CPU).

SoftWindows 95 is a fully licensed Microsoft product(specifically targeted for MacOS users). Note that the late MS Windows NT 4.0 Alpha Edition includes DEC’s FX32 (X86 layer)…

[Hammer]

@KennyR
For BSOD to happen within Windows XP, some of your kernel level drivers/files/hardware is considered unstable.  

From my experience with our work server (which stores the application source codes), our up-time is 99.9 percent. We run Windows NT 4.0 Server on Pentium 4 @ 1.6Ghz, Intel 850 chipset (genuine Intel built board) with 1Gb RDRAM.

From my personal experience, I haven’t encountered any BSOD with ASUS A7N8X Deluxe**** (Rev 1.04) /AthlonXP combination, but I did encountered serveral BSOD with MSI-6330** (with BIOS V3.1**) (VIA KT133A class chipset). Both set-ups have at least 512Mb RAM.

**VIA audio/driver issues. BIOS updated to V3.6.
****BIOS versions from 1002 to 1004 (400FSB support).