Dear Eugene Lug members,
Yesterday I attended the Windows 2000 launch event at the Oregon
Convention Center. During the satellite broadcast from San Francisco,
Captain Picard(portrayed by actor Patrick Stewart, for a hefty
appearance fee I suspect) shared the podium w. Bill Gates.
Since many folks of my generation treat Star Trek almost as a substitute
for religion, I fear that many Trekkies will migrate to Win 2000 since
Captain Pickard said "make it so".
But seriously, from presentations I saw; it looks like COM+ is
well-designed, well-thought out. Microsoft sited Transaction Processing
benchmarks where Win 2000 Advanced Server (Servers w. multiple CPUs and
clustering) leaps to the head of the pack, leaving behind Unix/Oracle,
both with higher performance(transactions/second) and the lowest,by far,
cost per transaction. So, one would be a fool to use any alternative?
During subsequent QA sessions, I learned that Win 2000 is NOT going to
hit the deck running. Certain device drivers are not yet available, and
some follow up products like Small Business Edition(s) are still months
away.
I have not decided to abandon Linux, but I am going to test drive
Windows 2000 as it becomes available to me. Since I have the complete
TurboLinux workstation, server, and cluster; my strategy is to test
drive each against its Win 2000 counterpart. So, I will do the
following:
On the Windows side, I'll first install Win 2000 professional, then
upgrade to Win 2000 Server, and finally Win 2000 Advanced Server.
On the Linux side, I'll first install TurboLinux Workstation, then
upgrade to TurboLinux Server, and finally TurboCluster server.
I am wondering. If it is true that Win 2000 Advanced Server leaps ahead
of Unix/Oracle; why can't Linux(possibly TurboCluster) running on the
same hardware leap ahead of Win 2000?
BTW, I got 3 t-shirts yesterday. A very productive event for me.
Rodney
