In message <199607192240.PAA06649@seabass.progroup.com>, you write:
>> >I'm still trying to understand why people think they have to run NT.
>> >There are other options, like FreeBSD and OS/2. A lot cheaper and not
>> >made by Microsoft.
>> Because NT is a very solid server OS. It is tightly integrated with
>> the most popular application server software, Microsoft BackOffice.
>> It is *the* most stable OS I have run. It scales well across multiple
>> CPUs, and has a very solid multi-processor and multi-threaded kernel.
>> NT 4.0 will have not only dynamically scheduled threads, but user-
>blah, blah, blah, on and on .... del ......
I've had very negative experiences with OS/2.
I've installed it multiple times (I got OS/2 warp/ warp connect and NE2000 boards).
I've installed it several times in the last year on different machines
configured differently...I don't do any serous work on them, OS/2 warp eventually
came up with a useless message "file system corrupt--please call <some number>
for support...right, sure, like, someone will come to my house and fix my machine?
NT is fine in many regards...but I just have an NT 3.51 installation go south,
and the "repair" mode can't seem to find my CD-ROM...
I also was writing some netbios/lanserver emulation code on another machine
(a sun) running TCP/IP. I obviously had a bug in my program (; -)) and it
seems I bought NT (3.51) to its knees with my bug (a panic).
Any OS where a buggy remote application can crash the machine is suspect
(yes, it can happen, but it points to architectural problems).
I found win95 pretty reasonable in many ways (I use it somewhat, mainly to
run win32 applications...and I need to network with it...) In many cases
installation was pretty plug and chug and it seems much more reliable than
I really get miffed hearing people laud the robustness of NT and OS/2...I found
both pale to current copies of linux and FreeBSD.