| From: | Rick Hodger |
| Date: | 30 Aug 99 at 13:01:10 |
| Subject: | Re: Future of Amiga |
I watched as Jonas Thorell hammered "RE: Future of Amiga" out on their
keyboard...
>> Gets even better, apparently the latest beta version of Windows 2000
>> needs somewhere in the region of a gigabyte of hard-disk and around 64mb
>> of RAM just to run Microsoft's own Web server (IIS), which is frankly a
>> heap of shite and piss slow.
> Hm, that's nothing. That's what the server version of Windows 2000 more or
> less requires without taking IIS into consideration. Not that it would run
> comfortably on that configuration. It needs more memory! It does run, well
> crawls more like it. But I seriously don't think that is something to
> complain
> about really. Everyone with a PC already has got that equipment or better.
> It's rather hard finding harddisks smaller than approx. 6 gig anyway (new
> ones
> that is).
Erm....no it's not (Lifts a PC mag) ...4 Gb Fujitsu drive costs 61 ex VAT
(flips a few pages) Seagate 1.2 Gb for 45 ex VAT.
> Don't get me wrong here, I'm not a fan of Microsoft (okay, this is written
> in a
> Microsoft application but what the...my Amiga isn't working at the moment
> - and this
> PC can do things I can only dream of achivieng on the Amiga, sad but true)
> by any
> stretch of imagination but complaining over a server-OS taking more
> resources than a
> "home-OS" seems rather silly. True, Linux or VMS for example are more
> efficient
> (not to mention stable) OS's but as far as requirement goes, the above
> specs is low-end.
But the point is that Microsoft have steadily increased the need for
resources over the years to force people to upgrade, and you essentially
don't get much benefit, plus I really wouldn't want to touch an OS that
needs over a gigabyte of hard-disk....if something went wrong software wise
you'd be better off just flattening the thing and starting over from
scratch.
We have an Linux machine in work, a P120 with 32Mb of RAM and a 4.3Gb
hard-disk, and it quite happily manages to run X-Windows, web-server, mail
server, ftp server, serve two websites getting somewhere in the region of
1-2000 hits a day *and* run 3 SQL databases which can be searched via the
web-sites (each database having a few thousand entries)....it can do all
that plus have some memory left over for us to test perl scripts on.
The Microsoft equivelent going by Windows2000 standards would need to be PII
550 with 256Mb of RAM and a probably need at least a 10 Gb hard-disk...and
it would still probably be slow, not to mention the fact that Windows2000
is amazingly unstable (just check the logfile on www.windows2000test.com if
you want to see for yourself, crashed 9 times in 2 days) and it is
*amazingly* slow, not to mention the amazing amount of security bugs that
Windows2000/WindowsNT/Windows9x have, I've read one story of how a
WindowsNT4 machine running just a web server and a SSH daemon were broken
into in a mere 8 seconds via the internet.
Oh, and don't you know that Microsoft plan to use the same Windows2000 to
sell to the home market? This is half the fun, they want to merge
Windows98 and Windows NT so they don't have to spend as much.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: blitz-list-unsubscribe@netsoc.ucd.ie
For additional commands, e-mail: blitz-list-help@netsoc.ucd.ie