Excuse me, but unless you're running apache from inetd (which is stupid for ANY amount of traffic), apache uses the Linux kernel to accept connections, and passes the connections to its child processes (subservers), which takes advantage of Linux's preemptive multitasking. This is exactly what you were claiming NT does that makes it better than linux. And if the question is one of multitasking vs. multithreading, I don't see why moving all the children into a single multithreaded process would add any performance gain, and would make the apache code much more complicated, because it would have to deal with mutexes and locks and all that un-fun stuff. Uh, no. I wasn't saying that it made NT better than Linux...it was a response your your earlier argument that NT left some users idle. It was nothing to do with NT is better than Linux cause. It was to do with, uh, Linux isn't better than NT cause . And overheads for processes as opposed to threads is always much higher. Especially when you have to start communicating across processes. Where did you get your assumptions that NT handles processes worse than Linux? Threading isn't just a nasty hack to get speed, it's there cause it's a good design - why do you think a mutithreaded ip stack is going to be incorporated into linux soon? There is no necessity in NT to use threads, but obviously (as i outlined above) it would be faster. Certainly, in IIS, you can choose to have each session spawned off in a seperate process if you want to - threading just makes more sense. And I wasn't saying that Linux IS guilty, I was saying that it's more likely linux would be guilty of leaving requests idle than what you said about NT (eg. don't make stupid claims about NT).
Re:100 billion in capitalization and only 45% fast
on
NT vs. Linux: Again
·
· Score: 1
Depends on what you mean by Linux. Linus thinks it's everything, including the software. And Linux "doesn't contain any unix code" is unlikely. Programmers would have studied Unix and inadvertantly used the same code/algorythms in the Linux kernel.
Re:You guys sound so lame - wanna BSOD on w2k?
on
NT vs. Linux: Again
·
· Score: 1
Have you sent a bug report to MS btw? If you can reproduce it, you should.
Re:You guys sound so lame - wanna BSOD on w2k?
on
NT vs. Linux: Again
·
· Score: 1
Can't reproduce it here. I'm guessing it's your video card driver or your mouse driver.
It did mention that they did try zeus, the other web server suggested by linux advocates. But the cut off point was yet again present. The source of the performance block was the tcp/ip stack, not the web server.
Re: Yes, it turns out vader was a good guy
on
NT vs. Linux: Again
·
· Score: 1
And the emperor (*place-any-ms-competitor-who-is-winging-to-the-go verment-here*) was really the bad guy.
Great enthusiasm - You sound like Steve Balmer:) The problem here is that you're wrong on several key points
LOL;) 1. Win2K's interface is not improved. It sucks. NT4 was good. I get paid to admin NT4. I like NT4. Win2k is a major step backwards in usability. The ungodly number of wizards in NT5 (oops win2k) makes it impossible to do any real work. Sure you can turn them off, but the mere sight of them drives me nuts - it's like having 4000 of those fscking dancing paperclips. This is supposed to be a server os - wizards don't belong on a server os.
I have to disagree there. I think the W2K gui a slight improvement (GUI here, not tools). The new MMC is great. You can administer everything from one program (including add devices, read event logs, add users, make shares etc). What's more, you can do it to remote machines...seemlessly.
2. Win2k's performance. This sucks too. Win2k takes ages to boot. Once it's up, using office 2k takes far longer than NT4 + Office97 ever did. My box is a PII 450 128Mb of RAM, I know that's not enough for the 2k products, but the company won't splurge for an upgrade.
I think it's wonderful!!! My W2K box boots in no time, and it boots in even less time when i use the cool new hibernate (memory to disk) feature. yummy. I'm running a K6-200 with 192MB ram (did have 64MB, but it was a bit sluggish with all the services installed). 3. Stability. This is anecdotal, but I've had more lockups (5) and blue screens (1) with NT5 than I had on the same box with NT4 (3)lock and (0)BSOD - Admitedly it's still in beta
Wow, I haven't had any bluescreens except one where i installed an unsigned NT4 driver i was warned not to install..after that, everything else was perfect...been running for weeks with no problems with BSODs (it's more purple now tho:P).
4. Ease of development. There is a special place in the most fiery pit of hell for someone who names a function RegisterServiceCtrlHandlerW() Don't tell me that Win32 makes life easier for developers. It spawns carpal tunnel is what it does Again i disagree, Windows is the most develop friendly OS...even 90% of *those* java developers use Windows. It's got brilliant IDEs, which make up for the long API names, but remember, VC++ has intellisense, so you don't have to spend too much time typing, or going round documentation trying to remember what arguments you need to pass. I'd glady have long function names, than horrible IDEs without intellisense! Besides, RegisterServiceCtrlHandlerW makes perfect sense;) I presume the W is for widechars. as for your experience at MS...uh,;) *side note* Microsoft is such a fascinating company to follow...it has such interesting people, like balmer, gates, allen (who has dissapeared off the face of the world recently) etc...a bunch of geeks (some more than others) becoming billionaires.
Re:microsoft makes great software. I agree
on
NT vs. Linux: Again
·
· Score: 1
This saying has been posted many times in this (NT vs. Linux: Again) thread.. "In my experience" Windows is unreliable. I get a minimum of 4 crashes per day on this machine (two of which I blame on the Cyrix processor but the other 2 are definitely Win faults). Even back in Win3 I got many BSOD's and I thought that was normal. (first PC was a 286 with DOS 3.3, nothing to compare with really) lol, you got BSODs in Win31? I'd love to see that. I don't ever recall seeing any crashes in Win31. I'm running Windows 2000 beta, and I never get any crashes, but I'm being good and not installing any 3rd party hardware drivers (but i am running all the software i usually run). Maybe for the computer know-naughts it would be good for them to think everything is the Internet, including the PC they shelled out 1.2G's for, but I tend to want to give people a chance to learn first. If they prove their idiocy then they can do something else. If they 'get it', even a little, then all the better for us. No need for everything to be '100% dumb-fuck-compatible'.:)
lol;) I think the point is the PC is becoming (already is?) an appliance. People don't need to know how a radio, vcr, microwave etc work, they just use it - that's the direction microsoft has been heading. Tho that attitude changes somewhat with Windows 2000, but Windows CE is their new consumer baby for d-f-compliance:). Mozilla isn't really a brilliant gift from netscape. Netscape give away this monstrosity of a product to the open source community. They look at it, and decide to rewrite it all. What's more, Netscape's object model is directly based on MS's COM. There's not much to thank netscape for....maybe MS deserves more thanks since nxCOM is derived from COM..hehehehe:PPPP Regarding the title, you said you agree microsoft makes great software - was that sarcasm? I'm thinking perhaps *not* now, but I could be mistaken;D
Re:microsoft makes great software. I agree
on
NT vs. Linux: Again
·
· Score: 1
1 - that was just an example of when doing things the long way isn't the best way. i prefer to use a keyboard than punch cards. I prefer to use a mouse to start a program (sometimes) than type in the name (unless i happen to be in a command prompt already ofcourse) 2 - I wasn't talking about system administration! You'd use active directory or windows scripting for that:P
NT has preemptive multithreading, and IIS uses NT's threading to do it's work (including getting requests, and assigning them to a thread). You won't see a problem with what you're talking about. That's the whole point of threading, and why NT is faster than Linux. It doesn't matter how big a pipe a certain user has, NT will assign a 'timeslot' for that thread, then move onto the next, all threads will get equal priority.
It's more likely that Linux is guilty of what you say (certainly, we know that the ip stack of linux is guilty of this). And the performance of linux on SMPs shows how guilty it is of pending other tasks because of it's lack of threading (or use of).
Re:100 billion in capitalization and only 45% fast
on
NT vs. Linux: Again
·
· Score: 1
It's not a linear scale. And Linux is based on Unix, which has hasn't exactly cost nothing to develop.
Re:How about a PRICE/PERFORMANCE curve???
on
NT vs. Linux: Again
·
· Score: 1
uh, 10X0 = 0
Putting that aside, total cost of ownership of NT would be less cause it's faster and easier to use.
no he's not. he's funny, and it's pretty much true. there has been 3 years of claims that Linux is the best flavor of icecream.
Re:microsoft makes great software. I agree
on
NT vs. Linux: Again
·
· Score: 1
Granted, if it's possible to do it in under 200 megs (my Win partition takes about 210ish of the 450 I allocated it, custom install). I don't see this in Window's future
Yes, well. Obviously you can't recompile windows without features to slim it down, but like i said previously, Windows is a general purpose OS, it's designed to do most things reasonably well. Hmm.. so if I want to make a compiler for instance, I should make it so simplified that some shmuch who knows jack and is too fscking stupid to know it anyway can belch at the computer and churn out mind-blowing software? Come on. If someone can't do something (my example was admittedly very exaggerated) they have no business doing it. If they are learning it, have an interest, and most importantly an ability, then they are more than welcome. And let me be the last one to flame them. Unless what they do sucks
I'm talking more of writing apps to expect user errors and to handle them well, which is sometimes quite hard when you are writing GUI apps. Also, MS apps have technologies such as intellisense etc which add more overhead. It's try that COM/ActiveX would be more bloated than 'raw' apps, but I see the benfits are worth it. For example, IE can view PDF files, not by implementing it itself, but by calling Adobe Acrobat and telling it where to put itself (IE as the OLE container). Other things like, being able to put a word document inside an excel application inside a bitmap, inside the windows activex desktop etc etc. Very cool. There are other things like consistancy. z as an undo for almost everything, including this form text box i'm typing into. These are small things, but there are hundreds of small things which makes windows so much nicer to work with.
Nope, by no means. Working for Microsoft pollutes you. To varying degrees, I should have said. M$ and their ilk (other companies with similar policies) drag down those who would be giants in other aspects than the dollar sign. I am somewhat fearful, truth be known, to develop my better ideas due to Microsoft and others like it. I fear my ideas would get stolen right out from under me and there would be a total of jack SHIT I could do to retaliate
That may be true to a degree, but I've never put the fear of being usurped in the way of developing anything i thought would be 'cool'. I think what you say applies to ever other industry and company tho. Speaking of other companies, do you think working at Netscape (yucky software), Sun, Oracle etc would be as 'polluting'? I've always been impressed by Microsoft's 'relaxed' working enviroment, and Microsoft's origin as a geeky company...Gates still acts like he's 20 years old - and he's got a genuine interest in 'cool' technology like speech technology etc, and MS competition or no compettion still spend billions on R&D cause bill just loves gadegets, which is more than I can say for Ellison and McNealy (who IMHO are the real money hungry jealous types). Remember, Gates used to be a Geek, not a satan worshiper. You might think it isn't significant, but the overall impression of Microsoft I get isn't bad. Ok, I 'may be' naive but I know how easily what they say can be twisted. A little MS employee sending an email saying "Netscape navigator is quite popular" could snowball into an accusation that Microsoft is trying to take over the world and that they are working for an alien goverment. What people see as bad things (which MS does) is nothing unique to MS, it's done worse by MS's competitors, they just don't do successfully, so it's easier for them to play 'innocent'. Netscape have used much worse strong arm tactics to try to control web content...where MS just want to integrate IE into Windows (a very good idea IMHO). Netscape have always been free to create a replacement shell to Windows (it's not hard) that supports netscape web integration. It was netscape's channels bar that wouldn't let you delete default channels, not IE's, and it was Netscape that made Netcentre the default page for every browser on your system. Without asking. How rude.
I'm not sure if i directly compares Win32 to KDE/Gnome, but i'll have to mention here that KDE and Gnome aren't GUIs, they are specifications and APIs for writing X apps. Certainly Gnome isn't a GUI, but rather a specification (and API set) for writing X applications.
Re:microsoft makes great software. I agree
on
NT vs. Linux: Again
·
· Score: 1
Well, unlike what you say you know. I use linux, and I know how to use command lines, I'm not a mouse crazy idiot. But I do know where you draw the line. I'd rather use the mouse to do tasks which would be faster if i use the mouse. All Microsoft apps are heavily bloated? I don't think so, for what they do, they are rather slim. Try making an appliation do something, then try making an application that does something, and makes it easy for joe bloggs to use. And I didn't compare Linux users to MS Programmers, I didn't even mention the word programmer in the sentence. Stereotyping Windows as a file eating, memory hungry OS that is no good for nothing is jsut stupid. There are millions of copies of Windows out there in offices and homes, which work perfectly well for those people. And so working for a company polutes you cause you get paid? I guess work isn't that great now...I guess Linux shouldn't be working for transmeta, maybe he should do what he does independtly cause the quality of his work would be better - since he wouldn't be getting paid. Forgive me, but I'm confused, perhaps it's caue I don't work with Linux programmers, but what programmers do you know that aren't proud of their programming work, and wish to makeit better and cooler, regardless of whether they get paid or not. Microsoft certainly makes a better working enviroment for their employees, who generally get to do what they want to a point. Think about raster or alan or some other major Linux programmer who gets hired by RedHat, does that all of a sudden make them not willing to write decent software?
Windows' WDM (Windows Drive Model) new, driver model is now enhanced to allow more stable systems when they go into sleep or hibernation mode (for windows 2000), MS has always allowed programmers to extends the kernel by making drovers/vxds etc, but poorly written drivers lead to poor stability. The reason this happens on NT more often is simply cause NT has more hardware and drivers than Linux, not to mention more variety and mix-match combinations. As for personal experiences of stability with both OSs, when I use Windows 2000, it just 'feels' more stable than Linux for me, as well as feels faster, and obviously has more software that I prefer to use like Visual Studio, Office and Java2 - Word runs faster than anything I've seen on Linux that comes close to functionality. People who try to compare sizes by comparing Emacs to Office, or Lynx to IE is just silly.
If there is such a thing as the real problem, it's not mostly with Windows, it's with Windows developers who get ahead of themselves.
I get more support from MS than any other software company, or even Linux community. I get bitten whenever i ask a programming question on a Linux newsgroup, which is why i kindda ran away back to MS - the people tend to be nicer and more tolerant. Win32 API IMHO is a well rounded API. Easy to work with things from Threads, to Pipes, and to GUI stuff, like menus etc...KDE and Gnome need to play catch up..but by the time they catch up to win95, they'll need to catch up to Win2000. I don't have a big problem with Open Source, I have a big problem with the Open Source community who seem to be too religous for my liking. I'd rather go with Microsoft and pay money, than with Linux and have a community who bites heads off.
I'd rather have CE than Java giving me chemotherapy.
Re:microsoft makes great software. I agree
on
NT vs. Linux: Again
·
· Score: 0
Talk about troll. Replace Microsoft with Linux Torvalds. Linux doesn't run SMPs well does it? NT isn't designed to be a super computer OS. It's a PC operating system, a general purpose OS. DUH. slashdot.org doesn't run IIS? uh..it's got nothing to do with microsoft..so what? EBAY, Microsoft, Dell run IIS, and they have much bigger websites than slashdot.
Microsoft don't grow engineers on trees, their engineers come fromvarious backgrounds (inlcuding unix). They have enough money to hire the best in the world, and they do. You probably have your face stuck up somewhere dark to realise you can't comapre vi or emacs to Office 2000 and complain how large Office is etc. Office does MUCH more, and Microsoft's products simplyfy working, which is more than I can say for Linux/Unix. Sure, there are you guys out there who don't want things to be simple, you'd rather excercise your brains doing "hard" things like mounting NFS/SMB dirves by typing rather than doing it in a few clicks. I prefer to have the OS do as much as it can, while I get on with the real work. If by any chance, I need to do things manually, I go and do it.
And what's your problem? Are you on medication? MS Write, MS Bob? So what? How about MS Windows, MS Office (Word, Excel, Access, Powerpoint etc), MS Visual Studio, MS J++ (if the best selling javaproduct), MS Exchange, MS SQL Server, MS Internet Explorer, MS IIS, MS COM (the most successful component model in the entire world), MS MTS, MS DTC..all pretty much defacto standards now...and that's only to mention a few.
Unlike Linux users MS doesn't claim not to make mistakes, infact Gates even showed the video of Win98's BSOD last year, again this year at COMDEX.
Look, yes NT bet Linux on these tests, on this hardware. That's the whole point. Companies want to know what is the best platform for delivering webpages or file serving. They don't give a crap about whether they can serve their corporate web site on the 386 they found at the dump. Sure, Linux can run better no a 386...that's cause NT relies on so many bulky technologies that is the framework to their future Windows technologies. These technologies makes it easier for programmers, and users alike. Many of you probably don't realise how much code and work is required to make an OS 'user-friendly'. If you don't like the bulk - one word. Java.
Linux users tend to forget about all that, and just make it 'raw'. Lets not forget Windows has a GUI. Tried running X on a 386 lately? Windows isn't designed to run on computers of yesteryear. It's designed to run on computers of the present, and possibly the future. If Linux will run on your 386, good for you, run it. But the whole point of these tests isn't a shoot down to the death. MS are trying to show that NT is the best compared to Linux for Web servering and File servering on today's hardware. Stability is hardly an issue. I have never had to reboot an NT server cause of a bluescreen, and I run several NT networks. Windows 2000 hardly needs a reboot for anything - which was one of MS's goals for Win2000.
Complaning about NT stability is so lame now days. If you go and install 3rd party native kernel drivers that are unstable, it's your fault. If you know how to administer properly, you should have no problems. Usage wise, I've had more kernel crashes on Linux than on NT. Yes, but Linux is open source!!! And I could fix it all myself. I don't care. I have my own projects to get on with. And if it means I have to pay a company that supports thousands of employees and talented engineers, so what? I get my money's worth, and I can get on with my own work. Besides, Microsoft tend to send me free copies of their software anyway:). In my experience, Linux has a LONG LONG way to go before it matches NT in very important areas. Performance, Easy of use (some of use like to spend our time doing important and challenging tasks, not pissing around with mundane tasks), and a non-hostile community. I think you will find that ease-of-use is very difficult to obtain. Test drive Windows 2000 and you'll see how consitant and 'obvious' the interface is, but it's damned difficult to get the balance.
-I don't think he really works at MS. -MFC/WFC are wrappers. The real API for windows is the Win32 API. Companies like Bristol have ported MFC classes to Unix. -Why would windows apps run 'out of the box' on two different processors? In Unix you have to recompile too.. -Why bother with POSIX? Win32 is the most popular API in the world.
In my experience, all programmers admire their work, i'm not sure what crap these people are spewing up about MS employees not being proud of their work. YEESH. I find Linux software generally horrid to use, cause people make what they need, then never finish it once they are statisfied. Frankly, I have my own projects to work on, and I don't mind paying money for software as long as I don't have to piss around rewriting it so it can do this or that.
1.2billion is not nothing to bill gates. Lets say you had $100 (and that's ALL you have) ininvestments. Would $1.20 be "nothing". Bill doesn't have $100billion packed under his mattress you know.
And there are many other "evil-kill-kill-kill-cause-i'm-jealous" people with "billions" of dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse me, but unless you're running apache from inetd (which is stupid for ANY amount of traffic), apache uses the Linux kernel to accept connections, and passes the connections to its child processes (subservers), which takes advantage of Linux's preemptive multitasking. This is exactly what you were claiming NT does that makes it better than linux. And if the question is one of multitasking vs. multithreading, I don't see why moving all the children into a single multithreaded process would add any performance gain, and would make the apache code much more complicated, because it would have to deal with mutexes and locks and all that un-fun stuff.
Uh, no. I wasn't saying that it made NT better than Linux...it was a response your your earlier argument that NT left some users idle. It was nothing to do with NT is better than Linux cause. It was to do with, uh, Linux isn't better than NT cause . And overheads for processes as opposed to threads is always much higher. Especially when you have to start communicating across processes. Where did you get your assumptions that NT handles processes worse than Linux?
Threading isn't just a nasty hack to get speed, it's there cause it's a good design - why do you think a mutithreaded ip stack is going to be incorporated into linux soon?
There is no necessity in NT to use threads, but obviously (as i outlined above) it would be faster. Certainly, in IIS, you can choose to have each session spawned off in a seperate process if you want to - threading just makes more sense. And I wasn't saying that Linux IS guilty, I was saying that it's more likely linux would be guilty of leaving requests idle than what you said about NT (eg. don't make stupid claims about NT).
Depends on what you mean by Linux. Linus thinks it's everything, including the software. And Linux "doesn't contain any unix code" is unlikely. Programmers would have studied Unix and inadvertantly used the same code/algorythms in the Linux kernel.
Have you sent a bug report to MS btw? If you can reproduce it, you should.
Can't reproduce it here. I'm guessing it's your video card driver or your mouse driver.
It did mention that they did try zeus, the other web server suggested by linux advocates. But the cut off point was yet again present. The source of the performance block was the tcp/ip stack, not the web server.
And the emperor (*place-any-ms-competitor-who-is-winging-to-the-go verment-here*) was really the bad guy.
Great enthusiasm - You sound like Steve Balmer :) The problem here is that you're wrong on several key points
;)
:P).
;) I presume the W is for widechars. ;) *side note* Microsoft is such a fascinating company to follow...it has such interesting people, like balmer, gates, allen (who has dissapeared off the face of the world recently) etc...a bunch of geeks (some more than others) becoming billionaires.
LOL
1. Win2K's interface is not improved. It sucks. NT4 was good. I get paid to admin NT4. I like NT4. Win2k is a major step backwards in usability. The ungodly number of wizards in NT5 (oops win2k) makes it impossible to do any real work. Sure you can turn them off, but the mere sight of them drives me nuts - it's like having 4000 of those fscking dancing paperclips. This is supposed to be a server os - wizards don't belong on a server os.
I have to disagree there. I think the W2K gui a slight improvement (GUI here, not tools). The new MMC is great. You can administer everything from one program (including add devices, read event logs, add users, make shares etc). What's more, you can do it to remote machines...seemlessly.
2. Win2k's performance. This sucks too. Win2k takes ages to boot. Once it's up, using office 2k takes far longer than NT4 + Office97 ever did. My box is a PII 450 128Mb of RAM, I know that's not enough for the 2k products, but the company won't splurge for an upgrade.
I think it's wonderful!!! My W2K box boots in no time, and it boots in even less time when i use the cool new hibernate (memory to disk) feature. yummy. I'm running a K6-200 with 192MB ram (did have 64MB, but it was a bit sluggish with all the services installed).
3. Stability. This is anecdotal, but I've had more lockups (5) and blue screens (1) with NT5 than I had on the same box with NT4 (3)lock and (0)BSOD - Admitedly it's still in beta
Wow, I haven't had any bluescreens except one where i installed an unsigned NT4 driver i was warned not to install..after that, everything else was perfect...been running for weeks with no problems with BSODs (it's more purple now tho
4. Ease of development. There is a special place in the most fiery pit of hell for someone who names a function RegisterServiceCtrlHandlerW() Don't tell me that Win32 makes life easier for developers. It spawns carpal tunnel is what it does Again i disagree, Windows is the most develop friendly OS...even 90% of *those* java developers use Windows. It's got brilliant IDEs, which make up for the long API names, but remember, VC++ has intellisense, so you don't have to spend too much time typing, or going round documentation trying to remember what arguments you need to pass.
I'd glady have long function names, than horrible IDEs without intellisense! Besides, RegisterServiceCtrlHandlerW makes perfect sense
as for your experience at MS...uh,
This saying has been posted many times in this (NT vs. Linux: Again) thread.. "In my experience" Windows is unreliable. I get a minimum of 4 crashes per day on this machine (two of which I blame on the Cyrix processor but the other 2 are definitely Win faults). Even back in Win3 I got many BSOD's and I thought that was normal. (first PC was a 286 with DOS 3.3, nothing to compare with really) :)
;) I think the point is the PC is becoming (already is?) an appliance. People don't need to know how a radio, vcr, microwave etc work, they just use it - that's the direction microsoft has been heading. Tho that attitude changes somewhat with Windows 2000, but Windows CE is their new consumer baby for d-f-compliance :). Mozilla isn't really a brilliant gift from netscape. Netscape give away this monstrosity of a product to the open source community. They look at it, and decide to rewrite it all. What's more, Netscape's object model is directly based on MS's COM. There's not much to thank netscape for....maybe MS deserves more thanks since nxCOM is derived from COM..hehehehe :PPPP Regarding the title, you said you agree microsoft makes great software - was that sarcasm? I'm thinking perhaps *not* now, but I could be mistaken ;D
lol, you got BSODs in Win31? I'd love to see that. I don't ever recall seeing any crashes in Win31. I'm running Windows 2000 beta, and I never get any crashes, but I'm being good and not installing any 3rd party hardware drivers (but i am running all the software i usually run).
Maybe for the computer know-naughts it would be good for them to think everything is the Internet, including the PC they shelled out 1.2G's for, but I tend to want to give people a chance to learn first. If they prove their idiocy then they can do something else. If they 'get it', even a little, then all the better for us. No need for everything to be '100% dumb-fuck-compatible'.
lol
1 - that was just an example of when doing things the long way isn't the best way. i prefer to use a keyboard than punch cards. I prefer to use a mouse to start a program (sometimes) than type in the name (unless i happen to be in a command prompt already ofcourse) :P
2 - I wasn't talking about system administration! You'd use active directory or windows scripting for that
NT has preemptive multithreading, and IIS uses NT's threading to do it's work (including getting requests, and assigning them to a thread). You won't see a problem with what you're talking about. That's the whole point of threading, and why NT is faster than Linux. It doesn't matter how big a pipe a certain user has, NT will assign a 'timeslot' for that thread, then move onto the next, all threads will get equal priority.
It's more likely that Linux is guilty of what you say (certainly, we know that the ip stack of linux is guilty of this). And the performance of linux on SMPs shows how guilty it is of pending other tasks because of it's lack of threading (or use of).
It's not a linear scale.
And Linux is based on Unix, which has hasn't exactly cost nothing to develop.
uh, 10X0 = 0
Putting that aside, total cost of ownership of NT would be less cause it's faster and easier to use.
no he's not. he's funny, and it's pretty much true. there has been 3 years of claims that Linux is the best flavor of icecream.
Granted, if it's possible to do it in under 200 megs (my Win partition takes about 210ish of the 450 I allocated it, custom install). I don't see this in Window's future
...where MS just want to integrate IE into Windows (a very good idea IMHO). Netscape have always been free to create a replacement shell to Windows (it's not hard) that supports netscape web integration. It was netscape's channels bar that wouldn't let you delete default channels, not IE's, and it was Netscape that made Netcentre the default page for every browser on your system. Without asking. How rude.
Yes, well. Obviously you can't recompile windows without features to slim it down, but like i said previously, Windows is a general purpose OS, it's designed to do most things reasonably well.
Hmm.. so if I want to make a compiler for instance, I should make it so simplified that some shmuch who knows jack and is too fscking stupid to know it anyway can belch at the computer and churn out mind-blowing software? Come on. If someone can't do something (my example was admittedly very exaggerated) they have no business doing it. If they are learning it, have an interest, and most importantly an ability, then they are more than welcome. And let me be the last one to flame them. Unless what they do sucks
I'm talking more of writing apps to expect user errors and to handle them well, which is sometimes quite hard when you are writing GUI apps. Also, MS apps have technologies such as intellisense etc which add more overhead. It's try that COM/ActiveX would be more bloated than 'raw' apps, but I see the benfits are worth it. For example, IE can view PDF files, not by implementing it itself, but by calling Adobe Acrobat and telling it where to put itself (IE as the OLE container). Other things like, being able to put a word document inside an excel application inside a bitmap, inside the windows activex desktop etc etc. Very cool.
There are other things like consistancy. z as an undo for almost everything, including this form text box i'm typing into. These are small things, but there are hundreds of small things which makes windows so much nicer to work with.
Nope, by no means. Working for Microsoft pollutes you. To varying degrees, I should have said. M$ and their ilk (other companies with similar policies) drag down those who would be giants in other aspects than the dollar sign. I am somewhat fearful, truth be known, to develop my better ideas due to Microsoft and others like it. I fear my ideas would get stolen right out from under me and there would be a total of jack SHIT I could do to retaliate
That may be true to a degree, but I've never put the fear of being usurped in the way of developing anything i thought would be 'cool'. I think what you say applies to ever other industry and company tho. Speaking of other companies, do you think working at Netscape (yucky software), Sun, Oracle etc would be as 'polluting'?
I've always been impressed by Microsoft's 'relaxed' working enviroment, and Microsoft's origin as a geeky company...Gates still acts like he's 20 years old - and he's got a genuine interest in 'cool' technology like speech technology etc, and MS competition or no compettion still spend billions on R&D cause bill just loves gadegets, which is more than I can say for Ellison and McNealy (who IMHO are the real money hungry jealous types). Remember, Gates used to be a Geek, not a satan worshiper.
You might think it isn't significant, but the overall impression of Microsoft I get isn't bad. Ok, I 'may be' naive but I know how easily what they say can be twisted.
A little MS employee sending an email saying "Netscape navigator is quite popular" could snowball into an accusation that Microsoft is trying to take over the world and that they are working for an alien goverment.
What people see as bad things (which MS does) is nothing unique to MS, it's done worse by MS's competitors, they just don't do successfully, so it's easier for them to play 'innocent'.
Netscape have used much worse strong arm tactics to try to control web content
BTW, what's with the title. Was that sarcasm?
I'm not sure if i directly compares Win32 to KDE/Gnome, but i'll have to mention here that KDE and Gnome aren't GUIs, they are specifications and APIs for writing X apps. Certainly Gnome isn't a GUI, but rather a specification (and API set) for writing X applications.
Well, unlike what you say you know. I use linux, and I know how to use command lines, I'm not a mouse crazy idiot. But I do know where you draw the line. I'd rather use the mouse to do tasks which would be faster if i use the mouse.
All Microsoft apps are heavily bloated? I don't think so, for what they do, they are rather slim. Try making an appliation do something, then try making an application that does something, and makes it easy for joe bloggs to use.
And I didn't compare Linux users to MS Programmers, I didn't even mention the word programmer in the sentence.
Stereotyping Windows as a file eating, memory hungry OS that is no good for nothing is jsut stupid. There are millions of copies of Windows out there in offices and homes, which work perfectly well for those people.
And so working for a company polutes you cause you get paid?
I guess work isn't that great now...I guess Linux shouldn't be working for transmeta, maybe he should do what he does independtly cause the quality of his work would be better - since he wouldn't be getting paid.
Forgive me, but I'm confused, perhaps it's caue I don't work with Linux programmers, but what programmers do you know that aren't proud of their programming work, and wish to makeit better and cooler, regardless of whether they get paid or not. Microsoft certainly makes a better working enviroment for their employees, who generally get to do what they want to a point.
Think about raster or alan or some other major Linux programmer who gets hired by RedHat, does that all of a sudden make them not willing to write decent software?
Windows' WDM (Windows Drive Model) new, driver model is now enhanced to allow more stable systems when they go into sleep or hibernation mode (for windows 2000), MS has always allowed programmers to extends the kernel by making drovers/vxds etc, but poorly written drivers lead to poor stability. The reason this happens on NT more often is simply cause NT has more hardware and drivers than Linux, not to mention more variety and mix-match combinations.
As for personal experiences of stability with both OSs, when I use Windows 2000, it just 'feels' more stable than Linux for me, as well as feels faster, and obviously has more software that I prefer to use like Visual Studio, Office and Java2 - Word runs faster than anything I've seen on Linux that comes close to functionality.
People who try to compare sizes by comparing Emacs to Office, or Lynx to IE is just silly.
If there is such a thing as the real problem, it's not mostly with Windows, it's with Windows developers who get ahead of themselves.
I get more support from MS than any other software company, or even Linux community. I get bitten whenever i ask a programming question on a Linux newsgroup, which is why i kindda ran away back to MS - the people tend to be nicer and more tolerant. Win32 API IMHO is a well rounded API. Easy to work with things from Threads, to Pipes, and to GUI stuff, like menus etc...KDE and Gnome need to play catch up..but by the time they catch up to win95, they'll need to catch up to Win2000.
I don't have a big problem with Open Source, I have a big problem with the Open Source community who seem to be too religous for my liking.
I'd rather go with Microsoft and pay money, than with Linux and have a community who bites heads off.
I'd rather have CE than Java giving me chemotherapy.
Talk about troll.
Replace Microsoft with Linux Torvalds.
Linux doesn't run SMPs well does it?
NT isn't designed to be a super computer OS. It's a PC operating system, a general purpose OS. DUH.
slashdot.org doesn't run IIS? uh..it's got nothing to do with microsoft..so what?
EBAY, Microsoft, Dell run IIS, and they have much bigger websites than slashdot.
Microsoft don't grow engineers on trees, their engineers come fromvarious backgrounds (inlcuding unix). They have enough money to hire the best in the world, and they do.
You probably have your face stuck up somewhere dark to realise you can't comapre vi or emacs to Office 2000 and complain how large Office is etc. Office does MUCH more, and Microsoft's products simplyfy working, which is more than I can say for Linux/Unix.
Sure, there are you guys out there who don't want things to be simple, you'd rather excercise your brains doing "hard" things like mounting NFS/SMB dirves by typing rather than doing it in a few clicks.
I prefer to have the OS do as much as it can, while I get on with the real work. If by any chance, I need to do things manually, I go and do it.
And what's your problem? Are you on medication?
MS Write, MS Bob? So what? How about MS Windows, MS Office (Word, Excel, Access, Powerpoint etc), MS Visual Studio, MS J++ (if the best selling javaproduct), MS Exchange, MS SQL Server, MS Internet Explorer, MS IIS, MS COM (the most successful component model in the entire world), MS MTS, MS DTC..all pretty much defacto standards now...and that's only to mention a few.
Unlike Linux users MS doesn't claim not to make mistakes, infact Gates even showed the video of Win98's BSOD last year, again this year at COMDEX.
That's great! Good for you.
Look, yes NT bet Linux on these tests, on this hardware. That's the whole point. Companies want to know what is the best platform for delivering webpages or file serving.
:).
They don't give a crap about whether they can serve their corporate web site on the 386 they found at the dump.
Sure, Linux can run better no a 386...that's cause NT relies on so many bulky technologies that is the framework to their future Windows technologies. These technologies makes it easier for programmers, and users alike. Many of you probably don't realise how much code and work is required to make an OS 'user-friendly'. If you don't like the bulk - one word. Java.
Linux users tend to forget about all that, and just make it 'raw'. Lets not forget Windows has a GUI. Tried running X on a 386 lately? Windows isn't designed to run on computers of yesteryear. It's designed to run on computers of the present, and possibly the future.
If Linux will run on your 386, good for you, run it. But the whole point of these tests isn't a shoot down to the death. MS are trying to show that NT is the best compared to Linux for Web servering and File servering on today's hardware.
Stability is hardly an issue. I have never had to reboot an NT server cause of a bluescreen, and I run several NT networks. Windows 2000 hardly needs a reboot for anything - which was one of MS's goals for Win2000.
Complaning about NT stability is so lame now days. If you go and install 3rd party native kernel drivers that are unstable, it's your fault. If you know how to administer properly, you should have no problems.
Usage wise, I've had more kernel crashes on Linux than on NT.
Yes, but Linux is open source!!! And I could fix it all myself. I don't care. I have my own projects to get on with. And if it means I have to pay a company that supports thousands of employees and talented engineers, so what? I get my money's worth, and I can get on with my own work. Besides, Microsoft tend to send me free copies of their software anyway
In my experience, Linux has a LONG LONG way to go before it matches NT in very important areas.
Performance, Easy of use (some of use like to spend our time doing important and challenging tasks, not pissing around with mundane tasks), and a non-hostile community. I think you will find that ease-of-use is very difficult to obtain. Test drive Windows 2000 and you'll see how consitant and 'obvious' the interface is, but it's damned difficult to get the balance.
-I don't think he really works at MS.
-MFC/WFC are wrappers. The real API for windows is the Win32 API. Companies like Bristol have ported MFC classes to Unix.
-Why would windows apps run 'out of the box' on two different processors? In Unix you have to recompile too..
-Why bother with POSIX? Win32 is the most popular API in the world.
In my experience, all programmers admire their work, i'm not sure what crap these people are spewing up about MS employees not being proud of their work. YEESH. I find Linux software generally horrid to use, cause people make what they need, then never finish it once they are statisfied. Frankly, I have my own projects to work on, and I don't mind paying money for software as long as I don't have to piss around rewriting it so it can do this or that.
Try the nested tables in both browsers.
Not FUD. Truth.
1.2billion is not nothing to bill gates.
Lets say you had $100 (and that's ALL you have) ininvestments. Would $1.20 be "nothing".
Bill doesn't have $100billion packed under his mattress you know.
And there are many other "evil-kill-kill-kill-cause-i'm-jealous" people with "billions" of dollars.
Win2000 isn't 64 bit. 64bit Windows is on Microsoft's road map (msdn.microsoft.com - there's a whitepaper and development guide).
Also, Windows 2000 is one of the least bloated OSs i've ever seen, that can do what it does.