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."
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.
Perhaps you are not sure how this forum works. They are not writing every story that you see, they simply link to existing stories, which they provide a little (mostly ignored) comment on. Then we (the users) comment on the stories.
ZDNet, Garner Group, and many others have commented on Win2k after working with trial versions. I haven't seen a lot of positive reviews yet. I don't know of anyone who suggests you switch until the vast (65k+ by MS's own admission) number of bugs goes down. Perhaps by service pack 3 or 4, assuming they do not introduce new bugs like they usualy do.
Now lets look at some of the assertions you have a problem with:
Win2k is buggy
According to Microsoft. Also considering that it has gone gold and already have a service pack doesn't speak well of it or the testing it went through.
Win2k is unstable
This we cannot really comment on. Some of the betas worked perfectly, some crashed like their "stable" cousins, 95/98. To really know how stable it is, it needs to be released and put into use under a wide range of conditions. Given Window's proven and well documented track record on first releases, I know I don't want to be relying on it till it's gone through real world testing.
Win2k is outrageously licensed
A matter of opinion, but since Microsoft has pretty much already told us what will be the licensing policies, we can conclude what we want.
Win2k is bloated
For an operating system, YES. It's minimum system requirements and (again) Microsoft's proven "add every cpu sucking feature or else" track record testify to this.
Win2k is anti-Linux vaporware
No, but between how long it's been delayed, and how many times they have attemped to hype this non-existant product as a *nix killer, I can see why one would think that.
Win2k can't live in a heterogeneous lan
See "Windows is unstable"
Any last,
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.
You have no argument. This forum encourages discussion and responses to any story it presents. I will not hold my breath waiting to see if Microsoft changes it's Linux Myths and Solaris Myths pages so that readers can post responses to their (largly) false claims.
Finkployd
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