Stephen Kuhn wrote:
On Tue, 2003-01-21 at 14:55, Kesav Tadimeti wrote:In your experience is it still the case, I mean you mention NT servers were unreliable
Hi All,How absolutely true.
I believe, windows 2000,is a relatively stable OS for desktop uses. I use it
at work, and it does not need a reboot as often as NT 4.0 used to.
BTW, Yesterday's newspaper (here in New Delhi) carried an ad from Microsoft
claiming that it has the most stable & secure Server OS (Windows 2000
Datacentre edition) around. They also claim that compared to UNIX, the TCO
is 49% less and 22% less compared to Linux.
At the end of day, it is an IT manager who, being ignorant of real issues,
makes purchase decisions, so that he doesn't get singled out for following
the masses.
Tadimeti Kesav
I'm rather thankful that alot of managers that I have worked either
side-by-side with, or directly under have had open minds, and have had
the ability to "see in a bigger picture" - with tight budgets and less
and less manpower, they had to make some decisions that could have gone
a Microsoft way, but ended up going the way of "least work involved, and
if it works really well, we don't tell".
In the past I was more than happy to setup and install an OS/2 server
for a group of telecom engineers that DEMANDED an NT box - back when NT
4.0 wasn't really as stable as MS claimed - the box still lives and
serves files today - and that was in 1997 - very few reboots, very few
changes made to the box. Just works.
At Samsung Telecom America in Richardson, Tx., I helped to install RH5
boxes to ease the DNS burden on the network - one per floor and one in
the warehouse in Plano - management - higher management - not the IT
department, literally demanded that all of that be done on NT, but when
faced with purchasing 2 $15,000 boxes AND the software, they choose to
let us, the IT department, use 486's w/ RH5 that were already in stock
and on hand (Samsung builds computers, remember) and the job was
completed in two days time by two guys.
I've seen how some management is coerced and hornswaggled into heavy
purchases - especially MS purchases, but at the end of the day (a real
working day, not a 9 to 5 bankers day) it's what works that SHOULD be
chosen - and I do say SHOULD.
I find it rather strange that there are times where upper management
makes these types of decisions for entire IT infrastructures - based on
either hearsay or just on advertisement - yet, they're the ones that
whinge the loudest when it takes a single tech all day to fix one damn
computer running a Microsoft product...but they're the ones that made
the decision in the first place...
When I was at Siemens, most support calls came from NT and from
Windows98. We had 50+ Sun workstations - in the time I was there, I had
one call on a Sun running Solaris - and it was to connect a new Sun box
to the network. 5 minute job - up, running, no probs. Yet, about six
months later, one of the "managers" (soon-to-be-ex-manager) wanted to
move all the engineers on the Sun boxes to NT 4.0 on 300GL IBM
machines...upper management ALMOST went for it (and it would have been a
very pricey purchase), until we showed them our support reports on the
Sun workstations. Nicht NT! (g)
It's sad that some people in such positions have to be yanked in a
direction that is going to cost more money and time in the long run -
but I guess that's the way that the world goes round...sad but true.
as against linux server boxes. I have no personal experience whatsoever.
John
--
John Richard Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
