> On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 00:08, John Summerfield wrote: > > > Convert your favorite CICS app to the Windows world, connect 25000 > > > concurrent user sessions and watch the clock - then come back and tell > > > us how long the Intel box(ES) stayed alive under that realistic load. It > > > boils down to this, at the end of the day the mainframe is still running > > > when the Intel units have had to be rebooted multiple time. This goes > > > without stating that the number of Intel machines it would take to > > > > Linux is Linux. Don't confuse Windows' reliability with the reliability of > > IA32-based boxes. They can be built to be very reliable indeed, and even th > e > > cheapest PC clones today are much more reliable than mainframes of years go > ne by. > > The mention of Windows in this reply was only used as a fair example > since this is still the predominant OS installed on Intel gear, this > mention was not offered as a comparison between OSes - no confusion > here, sorry if I confused you. >
My point is you should not confuse the reliability of the software with the reliability of the hardware. PC crashes are rarely caused by hardware. -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition. ============================== If you don't like being told you're wrong, be right!
