> I have a potential client who is questionning the > stability of PC servers versus other options. His > specific comment is: "one of the issues that has > had a lot of play is that of the stability and > downtime of PC Server Systems vs. Mid-range and > up Unix systems" > > We are recommending a CF system running on Windows > 2000 with a SQL 2000 database. > > I would appreciate ideas for how to reply to his > comment.
Well, in general, he's probably right - midrange and better Unix systems are generally more stable than Windows machines, for various reasons. They're also more expensive, and the key to building a solution is to find the best performance for a given price. That's one reason why Windows servers are as popular as they are. They're usually adequate for most needs. In addition, they can be cheaper to administer, in the sense that you don't have to have the same skill level to be an adequate Windows administrator as you do for Unix. Of course, that has its own drawbacks, but again, for business use, you often want the cheapest adequate solution. I've seen a lot of companies who bought big Solaris boxes and Oracle (to pick two expensive solutions), not because they needed the power of either, but because they wanted the "best". They're mostly out of business, now - they were mostly dot-coms. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ______________________________________________________________________ Macromedia ColdFusion 5 Training from the Source Step by Step ColdFusion http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201758474/houseoffusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body or visit the list page at www.houseoffusion.com
