Windows 2000 is out! I have it. It hasn't been distributed to the people who put it on the shelves, but through M$DN (Microsoft Developers Network). It sucks, but it's out.
If you're really looking for speed, why not try a 64-bit processor? Alphas or Sparcs, both are very fast, especially Alphas. They run linux well, and are fairly stable. The only disadvantage is you would have to port the code by making sure that it's 64-bit clean.
Intel primarily targets their CPUs at the Windows market (Wintel and all that), but since there won't be a 64-bit M$ OS until 2002, who cares? Itanium will only be good for Linux and some washed up other Unices. May as well stick with alphas, which at least have run Linux for a while, as well as having a mature commercial Unix (Tru64).
About blackbox, well I have an alpha, and it gives me unaligned accesses all the time (meaning that it is not 64-bit clean). I like it, but it's just not good enough for my machine.
I like Ice for its speed; while it's not as customizable as E, it's not as bloated, and hence is a quick and simple window mananger.
Re:Discuss why Linux didn't do as well as you hope
on
Web Server Comparisons
·
· Score: 1
Don't be a dumbass. Can't you see that they didn't even use the 2.2 kernel? In fact, if you read the article, the 2.2 kernel was too good for the test! It's improved stack implementation _BROKE_ the Win95 boxes! Why did they use WinBlows clients then if they didn't work properly? Use some common sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows 2000 is out! I have it. It hasn't been distributed to the people who put it on the shelves, but through M$DN (Microsoft Developers Network). It sucks, but it's out.
If you're really looking for speed, why not try a 64-bit processor? Alphas or Sparcs, both are very fast, especially Alphas. They run linux well, and are fairly stable. The only disadvantage is you would have to port the code by making sure that it's 64-bit clean.
Intel primarily targets their CPUs at the Windows market (Wintel and all that), but since there won't be a 64-bit M$ OS until 2002, who cares? Itanium will only be good for Linux and some washed up other Unices. May as well stick with alphas, which at least have run Linux for a while, as well as having a mature commercial Unix (Tru64).
I WOULD, and it's great. Older alpha chips aren't that expensive, and they're fun to play with.
About blackbox, well I have an alpha, and it gives me unaligned accesses all the time (meaning that it is not 64-bit clean). I like it, but it's just not good enough for my machine.
I like Ice for its speed; while it's not as customizable as E, it's not as bloated, and hence is a quick and simple window mananger.
Don't be a dumbass. Can't you see that they didn't even use the 2.2 kernel? In fact, if you read the article, the 2.2 kernel was too good for the test! It's improved stack implementation _BROKE_ the Win95 boxes! Why did they use WinBlows clients then if they didn't work properly? Use some common sense.