RE: OT NT2K vs Unix.

From: Mohan, Ross <MohanR_at_STARS-SMI.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 13:40:55 -0800
Message-ID: <F001.002A81E4.20010201133755@fatcity.com>

Amen......there are very few new "discoveries" and many many enhancements.

One of
the reasons the Japanese automakers have been KICKING AMERICAN FANNY
for,
oh, twenty years, is their simple, dogged *improvement* of our methods. They even
revere
William Deming, a guy we just shrugged off in the 50's...he revolutionized QA
and
TQM over there. .....

oh,
btw

SARCASM: A cutting,
often ironic remark intended to wound.

( is
it "mean" to intend to wound? )



-----Original Message-----
 From: Kevin Kostyszyn [mailto:kevin_at_dulcian.com]Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 4:18 PMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: RE: OT NT2K vs Unix.
 Good
 points and don't worry about the sarcasm, at least you are honest about it. Sometimes I can't tell if people are being mean, or sarcastic.

Anyway, back to the argument.
 What it would seem like to me is that because Microsoft is trying to improve their platform you are arguing that they are moving more towards Unix. That's not right. They are trying to improve their system. Just because the Unix OS already had some of the functions that made it more stable doesn't mean that MS is copying Unix. For the love of goodness, if I think that way everyone is copying everyone else in some form or another! When air bags came out and car manufacturers starting putting them in their vehicles standard, did anyone walk around pointing fingers and saying "Hey, that was our idea come up with your own precautionary measures to avoid disaster!!!"
 hehehhehehe Kev

-----Original Message-----From: root_at_fatcity.com [mailto:root_at_fatcity.com]On Behalf Of Rocky WelchSent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 3:28 PMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: RE: OT NT2K vs Unix. From the URL:
 <A
 href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/professional/solutions/overview/reliable/default.asp">http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/professional/solutions/overview/reliable/default.asp PCs Stay Up and Running
 Memory conflicts and missing or altered system files caused many of the system crashes prior to Windows 2000. To put an end to these problems, we changed Windows 2000 memory management to reduce the chance that software applications will interfere with one another. Applications runing in a seprate memory area...HMMMMMM Unix did that 15 years ago.
 Fewer Reboots
 Performing routine maintenance on your system requires significantly fewer reboots, therefore less downtime, with Windows 2000. In addition, with its support for Plug and Play, Windows 2000 automatically recognizes and adapts to hardware changes. This means users can easily add hardware devices such as scanners, DVD players, and speakers without rebooting, and with less potential for user error.
 Reboots are also reduced-and reliability increased-through the Microsoft hardware device driver certification program. This program helps ensure that hardware drivers are compatible with Windows 2000, and do not require a reboot after installation. Certified drivers are tested and digitally signed by Microsoft. If Windows 2000 detects a driver that Microsoft has not digitally signed, it warns users about the risk before they install it on their system<A
 href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/professional/solutions/overview/reliable/default.asp"> Not having to reboot after installing an application....Unix from it's beginings.
 How Much More Reliable Is Windows 2000 Professional? Third-party studies that assess reliability from three different perspectives-lab-based testing, customer-site measurement, and user perceptions-conclude that Windows 2000 Professional is the most reliable desktop operating system.
 Highest Reliability in Production Environments <A
 href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/professional/reviews/nstl.asp">NSTL collected uptime data in the real-world environment of several customer sites and concluded that the average system uptime between failures of

    Windows 2000 Professional is 13 times more than that of 
    Windows 98 and three times more than that of 
    Windows NT Workstation 4.0.

Notice no comparison to Unix. It's like people that hangout with socially unacceptable people to make themselves look better (Hey! Wait a minute! Is that why alot of people want to hang out with me? ). I guess you're right they aren't the same. Unix posts much higher numbers. Sorry, it's sarcastic Thursdsay here. I love the debate about Windows and Unix. ;o)
Kevin Kostyszyn <kevin_at_dulcian.com> wrote:

      
      <FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
      size=2>I would disagree with that, how is Windows becoming like 
      Unix?
      
        <FONT face=Tahoma 
        size=2>-----Original Message-----From: root_at_fatcity.com 
        [mailto:root_at_fatcity.com]On Behalf Of Rocky 
        WelchSennt: Thursday, February 01, 2001 2:01 PMTo: 
        Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: Re: OT NT2K vs 
        Unix.
        The same prediction was made at least 5 years ago. At the rate 
        Microsoft is going, Windows will be a direct form of Unix. It becomes 
        more like it with every release. 
        -Rocky 
          "Mohan, Ross" <MohanR_at_STARS-SMI.com> 
        wrote: 
        <BLOCKQUOTE 
        style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
          
          Yea, but...... 
          Win2K Datacenter will just decimate Unix. I predict 
          that, in 5 years, there will be two or three 
          Unix vendors, fighting over the 45% of the 
          market that DataCenter hasn't eaten. 
          -----Original Message----- <FONT 
          size=2>From: Steve Orr [<A 
          href="mailto:sorr_at_arzoo.com">mailto:sorr_at_arzoo.com]]] 
          Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:01 PM 
          To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L 
          Subject: RE: 
          OT_RE:_Réf._:_Re:_asyn_i/o_on_sun_ 
          Close. It's Dave Cutler. There's too much old 
          DOS/Windows backward compatibility for 
          WinNT/2000 to achieve stability like VMS despite Cutler's 
          leadership. 
          I knew VMS and you, Mr. NT, are no VMS! 
          
          With apologies to Senator Bentsen, <FONT 
          size=2>Steve Orr 
          -----Original Message----- <FONT 
          size=2>stephane Sent: Thursday, February 01, 
          2001 9:22 AM&< To: Multiple recipients 
          of list ORACLE-L 
          NT is based on VMS (talk about a real OS) and if 
          my memory is good the guy's name is 
          Cutter. 
          Do I win a toaster ? a microwave oven ? a palm-pilot 
          ? 
          --- "Mohan, Ross" <MohanR_at_STARS-SMI.com> a 
          écrit : > "...Standing,  
          corrected, and sniggering....." > Odd 
          picture, that...... > <FONT 
          size=2>> > Anyways, pop quiz: 
          > > On what OS kernel 
          technology is NT based? > <FONT 
          size=2>> Who was the original designer and what was his/her 
          > first OS? > 
          > 
          -- Please see the official 
          ORACLE-L FAQ: <A target=_blank 
          href="http://www.orafaq.com/">http://www.oraaafaq.com 
          -- Author: Steve Orr 
            INET: sorr_at_arzoo.com 
          Fat City Network Services    -- (858) 
          538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, 
          California      &&  -- 
          Public Internet access / Mailing Lists <FONT 
          size=2>-------------------------------------------------------------------- 
          To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an 
          E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note 
          EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the 
          message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L 
          (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed 
          from).  You may also send the HELP 
          command for other information (like subscribing). 
        
        
        
        Do You Yahoo!?- Get personalized email addresses from <A 
        href="http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/">Yahoo! Mail Personal Address 
        - only $35 a year!

Do You Yahoo!?- Get personalized email addresses from <A href="http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/">Yahoo! Mail Personal Address - only $35 a year! Received on Thu Feb 01 2001 - 15:40:55 CST