Soon this clown will show up spouting all his anti-Intel pro-AMD rhetoric.
He makes the worst of the Mac, Linux or Microsoft fanboi's look a touch out of the ordinary.
Both the Woodcrest and Conroe have shown time and time again in INDEPENDENT testing, to be quite a bit faster than any of AMD's options. I've been testing a Dell 2950 with Woodcrest and it simply smokes the HP DL385 dual core setups time and time again in both SQL 2005 (mixed size transactions) and anything else I throw at it, most of the time by 30-40% real world numbers. Other testers have seen much the same.
Intel just pulled a Microsoft. Microsoft was caught napping by Netscape. Intel was caught napping by AMD. It won't happen again.
The migration from UNIX and Windows NT 4.0 here was in 2002. Since September 10th 2002, we have been a 99% Windows show.
Linux used to be slow, arcaic and fussy about hardware... but I'm not claiming its any of the above now.
Scheduled tasks (somewhat the equivalent of chron)doesn't need to record any passwords or such thing (at least now you can run the task with the system account). Things are very much different with Longhorn (no not Vista, Longhorn, the as of yet un-named future of Windows Server).
Actually if you bothered to read, the Windows admin support Windows 2000 and Windows Server 2003. If you think they are both the same you are much mistaken.
And you are right, I left out the UNIX admin FTE status. All the UNIX admins with the exception of the Sendmail guy are FTEs.
You haven't really touched a Windows box in almost 8 years?
I remember using Slack way back in.9. It was a HELL of a lot smaller install (hell it fit on 4 floppy disks if I remember correctly).
I got tired of the constant distribution battles, the various software incompatablities between distributions, and dealing with elitist attitudes of people that think they know all about Windows based on knowledge gleaned almost a decade ago...
I understand computers quite well, yet I find myself kicking out Linux boxes and replacing them with Windows boxes and getting better peformance, supportablity and uptime.
How do you know it's an obvious fabrication? Is that just more jumping to conclusions? If the report said Linux has "20% more uptime" than Windows. I'm sure not one person here would be waving the FUD flag, just more slamming of Microsoft... hell I'd even put money on that bet.
As for the TCO question, per client? Well we have 7 unix admins for 75 servers in total (A mix of Solaris, some IBM crap and Linux) and 12 FTE and 3 Contractors to support all our Windows servers... Windows wins that one again.
Well considering that a good admin knows what QChain is, at most there would be 12 reboots a year, for a downtime no more than it takes the server to reboot. Take an average HP ProLiant DL380G4 or 385 G1, which, with 4 disks in Raid 10 (HP's raid 1+0), takes less than 1 minute to reboot, you are looking at, at most, 12 minutes a year downtime.
In fact when building a new server, all the hotfixes up to that month are QChained and it requires ONE reboot to install all of them and get the server 100% current with all updates.
Personally I think a lot of anti-Microsoft/pro-Linux folks (not all pro-Linux folks are anti-Microsoft) are full of just about as much FUD, because it's apparent they don't know proper Windows server management.
For years the Linux mantra was that Windows cannot do enterprise, wasn't secure, and on and on... however with a good, well trained administrator behind the console of ANY operating system, it can be made secure, it can do enterprise.
here, because of the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitudes of the Linux support team, the Linux environment (limited to some Web server farms, SMTP servers and a few SAMBA servers), the uptime is around 99.0%. The Windows environment, which is a lot larger, over 1000 servers in total (a mix of 2000 and 2003 but mostly 2003) has a current uptime of 99.95%.
No viruses internally, no spyware/malware internally, inexpensive (compared to what IBM wanted to charge us for Linux support across three years), and reliable.
Yes, sometimes Windows works quite well. For some of us it's cheaper and easier than any Linux distro. People sometimes seem to forget while a linux distro may be free, support for it, from both the admin side, and the overall support at higher levels, is far from it.
Sony can screw up (or rumor to screw up big time) and just about everyone is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but anything published on the internet that damns anything Microsoft does is accepted as the truth...
You know the OSS community said the same thing when Windows 95 was released, then again when Windows 98 was released, then again when Windows 2000 was released, then again when Windows XP was released, and yet again when Windows Server 2003 was released, yet all of these Microsoft products did significantly better than the last...
One would think the original poster would have not cut and pasted choice words out of the article.
What was really said was "Installing Vista Beta 2, for me was one of the worst operating system experiences that I've ever encountered."
That is a hell of a lot different than: "for me [it] was one of the worst operating system experiences that I've ever encountered."
I mean I know this is the largest supposedly anti-Micrsoft web site on the planet (which for some reason almost 80% of the users are using IE but who am I to judge right?). But that headline quote is blatantly NOT what was said in the article.
Outlook task wont synch? Well DUH... ActiveSynch doesn't yet support Office 2007. Why is that Office's fault. You know ActiveSynch will get updated shortly...
We all know OS X runs like a dog on 512 MB of RAM, yet Apple keeps shipping it standard. RAM is cheap, cheaper than drive space, why not up these all to 1 GB???
Otherwise me thinks Apple is just lying to itself about MacOS X's performance...
If I wanted a media player to suck ram like Open Office and drain CPU cycles like a bad code compile gone horribly wrong, I'd just use Quicktime.
WMP works just fine for me.
Funny, the latest build of Ubuntu couldn't use my sound card, video card, properly support all the functions of my mouse, couldn't burn DVD's, couldn't play DVD's properly as it cound't use the sound card or video card properly.
Hell it even had issues with my wireless card.
Ever try to get the latest build of Ubuntu running on a Dell D620. I have. Half the laptop's functionality isn't there...
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, you don't know that Intel is selling under cost...
For Intel to fully prodcue one Pentium 4 processor at 90um costs them about 24 bucks start to finish...
So now that AMD has annouced price cuts to compete with Intel's price cuts, are they selling under cost as well?
Soon this clown will show up spouting all his anti-Intel pro-AMD rhetoric.
He makes the worst of the Mac, Linux or Microsoft fanboi's look a touch out of the ordinary.
Both the Woodcrest and Conroe have shown time and time again in INDEPENDENT testing, to be quite a bit faster than any of AMD's options. I've been testing a Dell 2950 with Woodcrest and it simply smokes the HP DL385 dual core setups time and time again in both SQL 2005 (mixed size transactions) and anything else I throw at it, most of the time by 30-40% real world numbers. Other testers have seen much the same.
Intel just pulled a Microsoft. Microsoft was caught napping by Netscape. Intel was caught napping by AMD. It won't happen again.
Virtual Server isn't horrible. It's quite good. No, it's not ESX or VMWare Server, but it still works very well.
Why is it OK for VMWare to let VMWare Server go for free, but not so for Microsoft to release their product for free?
The migration from UNIX and Windows NT 4.0 here was in 2002. Since September 10th 2002, we have been a 99% Windows show.
Linux used to be slow, arcaic and fussy about hardware... but I'm not claiming its any of the above now.
Scheduled tasks (somewhat the equivalent of chron)doesn't need to record any passwords or such thing (at least now you can run the task with the system account). Things are very much different with Longhorn (no not Vista, Longhorn, the as of yet un-named future of Windows Server).
Huh? Thats exactly what I just said...
Use QChain.... I don't think I'm following you.
Chaining update installations without QChain.exe is not safe
There are PLENTY of Apple and Linux related names as well... your point?
Hrm... nothing?
1.) Corporate Email.
2.) Corporate databases.
3.) Corporate file storage & print services
4.) Corporate IDS & VPN via IAS and ISA
5.) Corporate application servers
6.) Corporate terminal services.
All running Windows Server 2003 (or occasionally Windows 2000)
Trouble thus far? None.
Actually if you bothered to read, the Windows admin support Windows 2000 and Windows Server 2003. If you think they are both the same you are much mistaken.
And you are right, I left out the UNIX admin FTE status. All the UNIX admins with the exception of the Sendmail guy are FTEs.
You haven't really touched a Windows box in almost 8 years?
.9. It was a HELL of a lot smaller install (hell it fit on 4 floppy disks if I remember correctly).
I remember using Slack way back in
I got tired of the constant distribution battles, the various software incompatablities between distributions, and dealing with elitist attitudes of people that think they know all about Windows based on knowledge gleaned almost a decade ago...
I understand computers quite well, yet I find myself kicking out Linux boxes and replacing them with Windows boxes and getting better peformance, supportablity and uptime.
Go figure.
How do you know it's an obvious fabrication? Is that just more jumping to conclusions? If the report said Linux has "20% more uptime" than Windows. I'm sure not one person here would be waving the FUD flag, just more slamming of Microsoft... hell I'd even put money on that bet.
As for the TCO question, per client? Well we have 7 unix admins for 75 servers in total (A mix of Solaris, some IBM crap and Linux) and 12 FTE and 3 Contractors to support all our Windows servers... Windows wins that one again.
Well considering that a good admin knows what QChain is, at most there would be 12 reboots a year, for a downtime no more than it takes the server to reboot. Take an average HP ProLiant DL380G4 or 385 G1, which, with 4 disks in Raid 10 (HP's raid 1+0), takes less than 1 minute to reboot, you are looking at, at most, 12 minutes a year downtime.
In fact when building a new server, all the hotfixes up to that month are QChained and it requires ONE reboot to install all of them and get the server 100% current with all updates.
Personally I think a lot of anti-Microsoft/pro-Linux folks (not all pro-Linux folks are anti-Microsoft) are full of just about as much FUD, because it's apparent they don't know proper Windows server management.
Because it's Slashot, it's best to just label the story FUD on the front page, even though it may very well be true (regardless of the reasons).
But the world would more than likely stop spinning if anything on Slashdot was remotely negative to Linux, but postitive to Windows in any manner...
I, on the other hand, see just the opposite.
For years the Linux mantra was that Windows cannot do enterprise, wasn't secure, and on and on... however with a good, well trained administrator behind the console of ANY operating system, it can be made secure, it can do enterprise.
here, because of the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitudes of the Linux support team, the Linux environment (limited to some Web server farms, SMTP servers and a few SAMBA servers), the uptime is around 99.0%. The Windows environment, which is a lot larger, over 1000 servers in total (a mix of 2000 and 2003 but mostly 2003) has a current uptime of 99.95%.
No viruses internally, no spyware/malware internally, inexpensive (compared to what IBM wanted to charge us for Linux support across three years), and reliable.
Yes, sometimes Windows works quite well. For some of us it's cheaper and easier than any Linux distro. People sometimes seem to forget while a linux distro may be free, support for it, from both the admin side, and the overall support at higher levels, is far from it.
Actually Yeager broke some ribs, not his arm...
Reading these posts shows one thing...
Sony can screw up (or rumor to screw up big time) and just about everyone is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but anything published on the internet that damns anything Microsoft does is accepted as the truth...
Last I checked a full load of SUSE with all the fixings to give me a comparible level of software capabilities was just a tad over 8 GB...
Glass houses folks...
You know the OSS community said the same thing when Windows 95 was released, then again when Windows 98 was released, then again when Windows 2000 was released, then again when Windows XP was released, and yet again when Windows Server 2003 was released, yet all of these Microsoft products did significantly better than the last...
I bet you still like Parachute Pants and cassette tapes too...
One would think the original poster would have not cut and pasted choice words out of the article.
What was really said was "Installing Vista Beta 2, for me was one of the worst operating system experiences that I've ever encountered."
That is a hell of a lot different than: "for me [it] was one of the worst operating system experiences that I've ever encountered."
I mean I know this is the largest supposedly anti-Micrsoft web site on the planet (which for some reason almost 80% of the users are using IE but who am I to judge right?). But that headline quote is blatantly NOT what was said in the article.
Outlook task wont synch? Well DUH... ActiveSynch doesn't yet support Office 2007. Why is that Office's fault. You know ActiveSynch will get updated shortly...
You must be stoned.
My G5 tower has 1 GB of RAM in it and 10.4.6 is slow. VERY slow, especially touching anything in finder.
We all know OS X runs like a dog on 512 MB of RAM, yet Apple keeps shipping it standard. RAM is cheap, cheaper than drive space, why not up these all to 1 GB???
Otherwise me thinks Apple is just lying to itself about MacOS X's performance...
If I wanted a media player to suck ram like Open Office and drain CPU cycles like a bad code compile gone horribly wrong, I'd just use Quicktime. WMP works just fine for me.
Funny, the latest build of Ubuntu couldn't use my sound card, video card, properly support all the functions of my mouse, couldn't burn DVD's, couldn't play DVD's properly as it cound't use the sound card or video card properly.
Hell it even had issues with my wireless card.
Ever try to get the latest build of Ubuntu running on a Dell D620. I have. Half the laptop's functionality isn't there...