Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
> > > hammering the betas is a far cry from an "industrial-strength
> > > solution".
> > Have you a better suggestion? Seems a bit catch 22 if testing won't
> > prove it's good and we can't use it until we know it's good... Still,
> > industrial strength testing or not, it's more reliable than the SQL 2000
> > and DB2 installations I have here.
> Well you have a beta running, load it up with data and let a few hundred
> clients loose on it. I've seen win2k BSOD with less stress than that.
You have what? I have "never" seen a Win2K *production* system throwing
a bluescreen that was not caused by a hardware fault. And if the systems
you are referring to have any of this
- "state OFF the art" graphics adapter
- joystuck or gamepet
- ACPI HAL
you aren't talking about production systems and just disqualified the
probably highly overpaid IDIOT who installed them. Highly overpaid
because if he got more than the negative of the project cost, it was too
What I see reading this thread is the typical "release early" problem.
People have tried Windows 3.1, they "know" Windows is crap ... from
experience! People have had problems with Windows NT 3.51 and "know"
Windows NT is crap ... from experience! I don't exclude myself from that
group, I had tried MS-DOS 3.21 and I "knew" Microsoft OS's are crap ...
from experience! It took 15 years and some serious multi-million
projects before I reevaluated my opinion.
Windows 2000 by itself is an industrial strength, stable operating
system. Don't let it get in touch with hard- and software your server
doesn't need, give it the hardware your business deserves, and you'll
have a robust and reliable system you can trust.
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?