We have a NT4 server running on a Compaq deskpro 200mhz with 32MB memory.. Running very very very old version of Sambar.. Hooked into SQL server 7.0, MS databases, Excel spreadsheets and is a gateway server for Novell file web enabling.. Although this is only an intranet server, it has been running without a monitor, mouse or keyboard for several years without a reboot.. Swap file stays busy though :)
Danny On 21/Jan/2003 18:04:29, Jeff Adams wrote: > At 09:28 AM 01/22/2003 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >w2k (2000) is just as userfreindly, but more stable. > > This must be very user-dependant viewpoint. Over the course of a year and > a half, I had Windows 2000 Professional dump out on me about a dozen > times. I have yet to have Windows XP Professional crash on me since it was > released. This is on and using the exact same hardware and applications > that Windows 2000 choked on. As well, none of my Windows XP installations > at work have puked even once but I have had the very infrequent support > call about a Windows 2000 blue screen. So as a personal judgement/opinion > based on about 50 Windows 2000 and 30 Windows XP installations, I've found > XP to be more stable. > > -Jeff > ------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe please go to <A TARGET="_blank" >HREF="http://www.sambar.ch/list/";>http://www.sambar.ch/list/</a> > > > ------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe please go to http://www.sambar.ch/list/
