Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Says Windows More Reliable Than Sun
Anonymous Coward pointed us to a microsoft.com page that claims, "Major customers, such as Quote.com, are switching from Sun to the
Microsoft® Windows® platform because it offers better reliability." That's not the only reason given here to switch to a Windows environment, and apparently there are more to come every day until Windows 2000 is launched. Another direct quote: "Want more facts? Return to this page tomorrow for your daily dose of reality."
When doing fake news reports, can you make them -different- from the ones Microsoft churns out? :)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Damn; MS is good, but I didn't think they were this good. They've manipulated the facts to make Solaris look less reliable than Windows. But look at the "facts" again:
Despite Sun's claim that their high-end servers are highly reliable and built with redundant components, customers report that failures in service processors, controllers, processor cards, and other components have caused entire production systems to fail.
Those are hardware problems, not OS problems. I don't see many Wintel boxes built with these components either, yet these exact things can and do happen to Wintel boxes. Or, just get Solaris/Intel if the situation is really that bad; that product nullifies any claims M$ makes right there.
Analyst reports have repeatedly raised the issue of reliability problems with Sun platforms, and have gone so far as to recommend that customers not use Sun servers in environments that require high availability.
And they've done the same for Windows. Much more often, in fact.
In one day alone, Dec. 7, 1999, a leading auction site suffered a system outage of more than three hours when both Sun E10000 servers running the site's back-end auction system failed. Meanwhile, the company's Web site front-end, running on a Windows NT®-based server farm, has provided continuous availability with no single point of failure.
One: both servers going down at once? That's basically a freak chance, and certainly can't be attributed to Sun.
Two: Two servers versus a whole farm? Gee, I wonder how stacked the deck was. I also notice they they only say the farm's has no single point of failure, implying that multiples could well have existed.
Multiple vendors offer availability guarantees for Windows platforms, including IBM, HP, Unisys, and Compaq.
Four vendors out of God only knows how many. Is that something to be proud of? Besides which, they're guaranteeing the hardware, not the software.
And now, on to the "Hype #1"...
Windows runs 25 percent of Web sites worldwide; Sun runs 19 percent.
45 percent of secure Web sites run on Windows; Sun runs 11 percent.
52 of the top 100 Internet shopping sites run on Windows.
57 percent of top business-to-business marketplaces run on Windows.
You can't rely on these numbers. I can find Webserver statistics out there that say anything you want them to say. I can find statistics saying that Linux leads the way in these. Hell, I've found Webserver stats saying Linux is first, Mac OS is second, all other Unices are third, and the Windows systems are dead last.
Dell, the largest e-business on the Internet, runs on Windows.
Easy enough to find out that one business runs on Windows. But on which scale are they measuring, such that Dell is the "largest"? I know of sites which do much more business than Dell; what do they run? M$ doesn't say. No doubt Dell is the largest E-business site that runs Windows. But is it the largest E-business site out there? I'd like to see some numbers asserting that claim, please.
Other major sites include Barnes & Noble, InfoSpace, Data Return, buy.com, monster.com, reel.com, bigcharts.com, Hotbot.com, Nordstrom's, realtor.com, eHome, MarthaStewart.com, cooking.com, and Compaq, to name a few.
Simple bandwagon advertising. The usual "everybody's doing it" idea. So what? Everybody once believed the Sun orbited the Earth, too.
Electrolux, Accounting.com, Pro2Net and thousands of other companies have switched their web sites from Sun platforms to Windows.
And thousands more have switched from Windows to Sun, Linux, and others. Hell; several major sites have even switched from Windows to MacOS. What's your point?
Linux's marketers are great. Even I was taken in by this load of bull for a moment before I stopped to think about their data. Problem is, most people don't stop to think, and that's why M$ has retained its popularity over the years.
Oh, well, I suppose since you've already made up your minds there's really no point in actually shipping Windows2000 after all. Slashdot's fact-hungry editors have already proven to us beyond a shadow of a doubt that:
1) Win2k is buggy
2) Win2k is unstable
3) Win2k is outrageously licensed
4) Win2k is bloated
5) Win2k is anti-Linux vaporware
6) Win2k can't live in a heterogeneous lan
I admire this prescient ability to review Win2k without even possessing a trial copy. What a lot of money Roblimo has saved all of us by supplying us with pre-shrink-wrapped opinions which require no critical thought on our part. Truly, this is news for nerds and stuff that matters.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Microsoft says: The Reality: Microsoft Windows platforms drive the Business Internet. For example, 6 of the top 10 shopping sites run Windows and Microsoft SQL ServerTM. (Source: PC Data 12/99)
Media Metrix (http://www.mediametrix.com/ TopRankings/TopRankings.html) ranks the following as the top 10 shopping sites:
1 Bluemountainarts.com
2 Amazon.com
3 AOL shopping
4 eBay.com
5 Barnesandnoble.com
6 eToys.com
7 Buy.com
8 CDnow.com
9 Mypoints.com
10 Toysrus.com
And Netcraft (http://www.netcraft.com/whats/) provides the following info for each of these sites:
bluemountainarts.com is running Apache/1.3.9 (Unix) on FreeBSD
amazon.com is running Stronghold/2.4.2 Apache/1.3.6 C2NetEU/2412 (Unix) on DIGITAL UNIX
shop.aol.com is running NaviServer/2.0 AOLserver/2.3.3 on Solaris
ebay.com is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) on Solaris
barnesandnoble.com is running Microsoft-IIS/4.0 on NT4 or Windows 98
etoys.com is running Etoys Web server 1.2 on Linux
buy.com is running Microsoft-IIS/4.0 on NT4 or Windows 98
cdnow.com is running Apache/1.3b5 on Solaris
mypoints.com is running Netscape-Enterprise/3.5.1G on Solaris
toysrus.com is running Microsoft-IIS/4.0 on NT4 or Windows 98
Which to me, only looks like 3 of the top 10 shopping sites use Windows. Where did PC data get their stats?
on companies' sites, why don't you take a look at this page: http://www.valinux.com/systems/
"Unlike other Linux systems you might get elsewhere, ours are true Linux systems. They run Linux faster, cleaner, and better. They're high-powered, bullet-proof and scalable Intel architecture systems..."
And no facts to back those statements up. If I were a VA Linux competitor, this kind of crap would piss me off. Talk about FUD? What the hell does it mean when they say it runs Linux "cleaner"? Or "true Linux systems"? If you saw that kind of crap on a Microsoft site, you'd freak!!!
REDMOND(AP): According to Microsoft, Windows has been proven to be the most reliable and cost-effective operating system for servers, clients, embedded systems and every other task.
Extensive independent testing at Microsoft's product testing labs has shown Windows to be not only more reliable than Sun, but also more reliable than the Sun itself.
A spokesperson for Microsoft Product Labs was quoted as saying "this report contains incontrovertible proof that Windows is not only the most reliable operating system ever released, but also the most reliable operating system that could exist in all possible worlds."
The report also demonstrates that Sun, Netscape and AOL are tools of Satan and establishes a causal link between usage of Linux and brain cancer.
As a device driver developer, I have been using every weekly build of Win2k since before Beta2. I can tell you for a fact that Win2k is buggy and unstable. I was at the Microsoft Plugfest, where system vendors and device vendors get together and try running their stuff together under Win2k and WinMe (Windows Millenium). Build 2195, the build that went gold was cut after the first day of the plugfest, due to a major bug that had to be fixed. Lots of bugs were reported during the following days of testing. NONE of these low level, at the core of OS, in the kernel type of bugs were fixed for the gold release. We were told that they would go into SP1. In fact, the cut off date to get a fix into SP1 was the end of december. My group has already submitted Plug 'N Play issues that will not be fixed until SP2 at the earliest. This thing is not ready for prime time! /. FUD; it is the result of years of low level study.
At the plugfest, Microsoft's engineers were often stumped with problems that only a small hotel full of only three days or so of testing; imagine what millions of users in months of continuous running will find. Win2k's bug list is so large that you have to search for your problem at their site rather than all the known issues being made public through a definitive list. I for one would want to read that list before I bet my e-business site on it.
Try running a check build of Win2k and ready the output from WinDbg. Note all of the errors flying by, filling WinDbg's 30,000 line buffer size. Try running WinDbg, the main graphical kernel debugging tool Microsoft ships. It is perhaps the worst piece of software ever made. Every version fixes one bug but creates another. MS's own pplugfest engineers would not use it. If it is buggy than what kind of drivers will it lead to? How about Visual C++, which all of Windows is build with? How can an OS be stable when the development environment that created it needed three service packs?!
As for living in a heterogeneous lan, Win2k's Active Directory uses Dynamic DNS, which most other systems, including NT4, do not support. Although, you can get DDNS for Unix/Linux systems, it requires you changing all your other machines to work with Win2k.
Win2k is very bloated! Look at the size of all the running modules in a base Win2k Pro installation; it is massive! Check out the minimum requirements; they are unbelievable!
This isn't anti-microsoft, brainwashed by
-- soldack