Shelby Cain wrote:
>--- "Uwe C. Schroeder" <uwe@oss4u.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>The problem is, that it's a question of
>>>
>>>
>>perception. Most windows fans don't
>>
>>
>>>see that "their" OS is pretty instable.
>>>
>>>
>
>That may have been true in 1995. However, in this day
>and age most Windows fans don't see that their OS as
>unstable because it isn't - unless of course you are
>referring to the non-NT variations.
>
>
O.k. I don't want to start an OS war here. However
there are a couple of things I know.
1. As of Windows 2000, Windows is reasonably stable.
However there is a caveat, it still can not perform
under load (read slowness, possible crash) like Linux
or other UNIX variants can.
2. As of Windows 2003, Windows is very stable and
performs fairly well under load. However it still
can not keep up with Linux or other UNIX variants.
The majority of the problem with Windows in these
days is people who hire other people with little
pieces of paper that say they are knowledgeable.
A properly managed Windows server can be reliable,
can perform reasonably well, if you have the expertise
to do so. This is not that much unlike UNIX. The difference
is that UNIX requires the expertise, Windows makes you
feel like you have it when you don't.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>Regards,
>
>Shelby Cain
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
>Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
>http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
