Well all I'll add to this thread is that my company, Pandesic has been
using the real released version of Win2k for over a month now via the
MS early Adopter program. We are the largest Ecommerce solution
available anywhere, larger than Oracle and IBM and we run on NT. The
basic setup is a Web server that has our COM layer with ASP fronting
that and backend server that runs SAP/MS SQL 7.0 The win2K boxes we
are running are far are more stable than the NT 4.0 boxes as Web
servers. We have not moved the backend boxes to Win2k because SAP has
not certified Win2k yet. Speed is about the same on the same hardware
but the win2k boxes are not tweaked yet. The NT 4.0 boxes have been
tweaked on for almost 2 years. So far MS has delivered on the
stability part. The rest is yet to be proven. Only time will tell if
Win2k is any better or worse than NT.
Scott
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 2/17/00 at 2:17 PM Brian Lavender scribbled:
>On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 02:04:07PM -0800, Marc Matteo wrote:
>> <grin> I won a copy from MS last week. It's still sitting on my
desk at
>> home.
>>
>
>In the demonstration this morning, they were talking about windows
>2000 uptime. First thing I am going to look for under win 2k is an
>uptime meter. They boasted they had a test system running for 90+
days
>straight. I had to laugh on that one. Hmm, my Linux box at home is at:
>
> 2:12pm up 117 days, 17:54, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00,
0.00
>USER TTY FROM LOGIN@ IDLE JCPU PCPU WHAT
>brian ttyp0 debian Wed11pm 14:57m 0.25s 0.22s mutt
>brian ttyp1 blavender.spk.us 2:10pm 0.00s 0.47s 0.30s mutt
>brian ttyp2 blavender.spk.us 1:33pm 2:43 2.50s 2.32s mutt
>
>And here is another one. windows 2000 states that it requires a 133,
>but I have read on CNET that they would not run it under anything less
>than a 250. Dell is not selling it on anything less than a 400.
>
>But I still want to see what is under the hood. No, no, I take that
>back. I want to take it for a test drive. Windows still doesn't let
you
>muck with it under the hood.
>
>Shall we say the source is with us?
>
>Good thing Luke is on our side.
>
>brian
>--
>Brian Lavender
>http://www.brie.com/brian/
>**********************************************************
>* Sacramento Linux Users Group Mailing List
>*
>* Unsubscribe: Send a message to majordomo@saclug.org
>* With 'unsubscribe lug-nuts' in the body
>*
>* http://www.saclug.org
Scott Tyson
tysons@deepwell.com ICQ#: 125581
http://rand.deepwell.com/
**********************************************************
* Sacramento Linux Users Group Mailing List
*
* Unsubscribe: Send a message to majordomo@saclug.org
* With 'unsubscribe lug-nuts' in the body
*
* http://www.saclug.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 25 2000 - 14:29:12 PST