Windows Server 2003 making gains over Linux

[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)…

[DethKnight]

I have yet to see in this thread where someone screams "fix"

Also I have yet to see where formal accusations of bias have been declared in this thread.

Maybe my reading skills are not selectively filtered enough.

[KennyR]

While I do believe that Linux stability as well as MS instability is generally exagerated...

I would say not. Linux is pretty much bombproof. It's nearly impossible to crash. Linux IRC channel chatter usually composes mainly of uptime competitions ("I been up 306 days!" "Heh, that's nothing, I've been up 412!").

Then again, my Windows XP box seems to be stable until it gets heavily loaded, then it loves to throw fatal blue screens. And if its left on for several days, memory fragmentation will eventually render it too slow for anything but a reset button push.

Not that I can somehow compare this to server operations in any meaningful way, but if there is a myth about stability/instability you can at least see where it came from.

[Tomas]

....

[Tomas]

Linux and WinS2K are fairly close in regards to uptime.

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

My debian box did 280 days something or so, until lightning hit the electrical lines causing it to reboot.

[mrpigthe2nd]

I agree that windows can be a bit useless sometimes but my job is maintaining a vast number of servers and processnig machines. I have a couple of NT4 boxes with over 3 years uptime and 2 win2k boxes that have gone over 2 years. These are webservers, database servers and one thats just for file storage.

I have used linux a bit and not had any problems with it, my 2 test ones have been up for a few months quite happily.

Windows is best doing dedicated tasks, if you start running too much on them and playing around (ie let software developers near them), then they can cheek you

Darren

[DanDude]

Their numbers are going to change when they get a load of this!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/16/tech/main563635.shtml

[Waccoon]

I'm not a big fan of Linux because I don't personally maintain a server, but I have to admit that every Windows-based server I've used has been slow and has lots of connection problems compared to Linux/Apache solutions.  The only thing I really hate about Linux is that names are case sensitive, so you have to use capitalization very carefully in your HTML, which is pretty stupid.  Other than that, I wouldn't want my webpage hosted with Windows.

As for that link, DanDude, I personally think you have to be pretty stupid to buy an OS the instant it's released.  It disgusts me how many millions of people bought Windows95 on the release day.  I'm not surprised, no matter how often or rare such a cracker attack might be on a Win2003 server.

Trustworthy computing...  *snicker*   :-D

[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).