Win2k professional and Win2k Advanced Server, what is the difference?

[jediphoenix]

Why is one better than the other? also would the advanced server one be good tp install on a desktop?

[Thundrchez]

The only difference is the price tag. (OK, I can't resist giving Microsoft a good sucker punch when they so rightly deserve it.)

If you want something reliable, go with Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD, or just about any other *nix out there. Unix's native language is the internet with all of its DNS, ftp, www, etc. Microsoft had to kludge all of those on as an afterthought.

Sun really has it right. The network is the computer. Microsoft is left behind asking where do you want to go because they don't have a clue.

[paulcs]

Server comes with nude jpegs of Chairman Bill Gates on a bearskin rug.

Now, if that doesn't scare people off, nothing will.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[Jammrock]

jediphoenix,

In addition to Gurms remarks, Pro can utilize 2 CPU's, Server 4, Advanced 8, Datacenter 16 and a special OEM Datacenter can use up to 32 CPU's in SMP. Gurm just about covered the rest. Every step up gives you some nifty new feature, but the actual OS kernel does change.

Gurm,

Do you work for Microsoft? You seem to be the M$ info man, so I figure you work for them, are an MCSE/MCP or just a nut case (which is not a bad thing mind you, I am too).

Yes, Unix is 30 years old, but MS is 20 years old and they still can't make a very stable, low-load OS. Yes I know WIn2k is the most stable M$ OS in over a decade and rarely crashes, I use it at work. But let's face it, Win9x and WinNT have not been that great in the stability department. This is probably why Linux/Unix still rules the Internet world (by a lot, as of the last census I saw). I have a bud that works in an Internet e-commerce company who was having troubles with their NT 4/SQL boxes dying all the time. They evaluated Sun, Linux and Win2k option to replace it. Linux/Oracle/Apache won hands down in TSO and stability, and most of the people there were not Linux geeks either...kind of makes you think (at least it did for me).

Yes, applications are sparce on Linux, but the number is increasing. And yes Staroffice sucks, but I like WordPerfect more than Word, and Linux has that, too.

Yes, it is bad that a company that 'gives away' their product IPO'ed, but then again, can you name more than a handful of Internet companies that have broken a profit? Didn't think so.

No, I am not a geeky sysadmin for Unix/Linux. I am an administrator on an M$ eterprise network and toy with Linux, so I know a lot of the pros/cons to both of them. As with anything they both have their ups and downs, but currently M$ has the distinct edge in the enterprise world, while Linux/Unix rules the Internet world. Whether that will change with the rumored M$ break up, nobody really knows.

My $0.02

Jammrock

------------------
PIII 450@504, 256 MB RAM, 35 GB total w/ WD Experts, Abit UDMA 66 controller, CL 6x DVD, PLEXTOR 8x4x32 ATAPI CD-RW (my newest toy), G400 32 MB DH, SB Live! w/ Digital I/O, LinkSys Etherfast 10/100, DSI 56k modem, Addtronics 6896A Case w/ a crap load of fans and Dynmat noise dampening, MAG DX715T monitor.

Hi, my name is Jammrock. I'm a computer phreak and an EverCrack addict.

[Jammrock]

Gurm,

The kernel for WinNT is under 10 years old, but the OS code is eccentially the same...for compatibility reasons. The Win2k kernel is very good, but I still don't have the RTM yet, so I am not going to comment until then (Jan 24, and a legal CD, too).

My personal experience with Linux/Unix is novice at best. People I know who use Linux a lot, really like it. I am sure if I played with it a lot I would really like it, too, but there is this nasty bug on my compter called Evercrack that consumes so much of my frigg'n time that my audio pass-through cable for my CD-ROM drive remained unplugged for over a month because everytime I got near my computer I was playing Evercrack. My system is much more quite now that the insulated casing in on to dampen out the noise of 9 fans.

I just got Corel Linux and I am going to install that along with Win2k (once I get the RTM). Then I'll play around so I can form a more accurate opinion.

Jammrock

------------------
PIII 450@504, 256 MB RAM, 35 GB total w/ WD Experts, Abit UDMA 66 controller, CL 6x DVD, PLEXTOR 8x4x32 ATAPI CD-RW (my newest toy), G400 32 MB DH, SB Live! w/ Digital I/O, LinkSys Etherfast 10/100, DSI 56k modem, Addtronics 6896A Case w/ a crap load of fans and Dynmat noise dampening, MAG DX715T monitor.

Hi, my name is Jammrock. I'm a computer phreak and an EverCrack addict.

[KaosDG]

Ok, I have to get in on this argument...

WinNT is, By far a younger OS than any of the Unices out there... True. But younger is not better.

I have a development background in Both Solaris/Digital Unix as well as Windows (since NT 3.1) and let me tell you, NT Internals truly suck ass. And those are kind words.
Granted, there's a little more run-around for doing anything HW related in Unix, but at least if it breaks you *know* it's your fault. Not some stale DLL didn't like the call.
I've been dabbling in Win2K development and so far it is a lot kinder to the developer. But not by much. It is still NT at heart, but you can get away with a little more.
It's kinda like how your Mom says no but Dad says yes... but there still your parents.

As for scalability... I'll believe that when I see it. both NT and Linux pale in comparison to any OS that was designed around SMP.

[Thundrchez]

For the average computer illiterate joe, having a preinstalled win9x is probably the best way to go.

As for me, I have to avoid w2k for at least 6 months after it is released just to see the dust settle. It is a major, major change from w9x or wnt4 and a lot of things are going to need a lot of driver upgrades and software upgrades before they will work right.

jedi, what type of tasks are you expecting to do on a desktop? I've got a nt4 system that does an ok job as mail reader, www surfer, ms office, + other small misc things. For those tasks it has been very reliable on me; much more so than I know w9x would have been.

I still expect w98 to be the best gaming platform in y2k because it gives faster and more primitive (read dangerous and potentially OS crasing) hardware access. w2k appears to be more aimed at the office than at the gamer.

[agallag]

I have to agree with the general gist of this thread. Microsoft sucks ass, windows sucks ass, but unfortunately, everyone I know (including me) uses it. I think linux would be a step down, mostly because of the software availability, but also because of the ease of use.

As much as I like to think I'm a geek, I just can't get my head around linux. I think mostly I'm just too lazy to bother learning how to use it. I did manage to install redhat and get it connected to my ADSL modem once, but then my ISP changed to PPPoE (stupid new protocol, requires specialized client software). In order to get linux working again, I had to fudge through downloading hacked together clients from the internet and then recompiling my kernal. Even after that, it hardly works. It's just too much effort.

Now if the guys at Be can get people to write software for BeOS, I think that could have legs. Linux? It's great as an internet server, but I just can't see it on the desktop of the average joe. That's Microsoft's domain. And Lan servers, that's where Novell comes in...

[DentyCracker]

I am in the process of setting up my (crippled) machine to triple boot win2k, linux and beos. The easiest install by far is beos. Win2k is next followed by linux (mdk 6.1). Linux nowadays is a lot easier to install than before. Corel Linux 1.0 (if you have a card supported by xfree86 3.3.3 is good. In any case I can easily get my machine in a position using linux where I can browse the net, play CDs and mp3s, and do wordprocessing. I can also easily set up a linux box to do BASIC desktop stuff. All that being said Linux is a few years from being able to compete with windows on the desktop if it ever will. I do believe that it is too geeky, and I am a geek (I think). I hate having to recompile the bloody kernel. And why oh why does the bloody mandrake install CD-R and burning utilities and not install the freaking generic SCSI support that is needed to make it work. (Wombat,Shane if you know where to get good instructions to do this tell me). end rant

[Jammrock]

Okay, I have NEVER implied that Linux is a) easier to use/learn than WinXX and b) that it is in any way, shape or form going to be a desktop replacement any any time soon. Just had to get that out of the way, because it seemed some people pulled that from my post. All I implied is that a good Linux admin can make one hell of an Internet server using Linux. And that with current market, Linux is gaining ground on M$ OS's.

As for M$...I am still undecided about Win2k, I still don't have the RTM. From an RC-3 view, Win2k works well, but it is still a witch to administrate and is bloated. Win9x is good for normal users and gamers. When Win2k gets better driver support it may take over as top dog...that won't be for a while though.

BeOS...the little OS that could. This is by far the newest OS out there. If my history leasons server right it was built from the ground up in the 90's (maybe late, late 80's) and is designed to be a multimedia beast! I have installed BeOS 4 on my home machine and plan on downloading 5 when it comes out. Now that Be has OpenGL support, maybe more games will hit for it...

Jammrock

[Gurm]

Oops!

[This message has been edited by Gurm (edited 20 January 2000).]

[Jammrock]

Having a studder problem Gurm.

Be Incorporated, founded in 1990 by Jean-Louis Gassée, is a software company focused on delivering an operating system designed for digital media applications and Internet appliances.

http://www.be.com/aboutbe

In October 1995, Be introduced BeOS at Agenda 96. The demo was done on multiprocessor hardware Be had specially developed, the BeBox. The first public developer release, BeOS for the BeBox, was distributed in April 1996. August 1996 brought the first demonstrations of BeOS for Power Macintosh hardware, and in January 1997 Be discontinued the BeBox to concentrate solely on BeOS.

On July 14th 1997 Be shipped the first public, commercial release of BeOS for PowerPC, BeOS Preview Release. Preview Release 2 shipped later that year, in October 1997.

In March 1998, BeOS crossed the processor chasm, with the shipment of BeOS Release 3, the first version of BeOS for Intel Architecture processors, and Be's first cross-platform software release.

http://www.be.com/aboutbe/companybackground.html

Looks like we are both right, Gurm. Jean-Louis Gassée was a developer (and I believe one of the 3 co-founders) at Apple, but he left because he had a falling out with Steve Jobs and a few other execs at Apple. He may have taken part of the code with him, but I doubt that the actual code he used for Be was the same code he made at Apple, because that would be using proprietary Apple information in a competing product.

Later Steve Jobs left and started Next. Then a few years back Apple wanted to buy a new OS to put life back into MacOS and chose Next, because they wanted Steve Jobs back. They won't admit that, but everyone knows that's why.

But BeOS was built from the ground up, which is why you see a 6 year period inbetween start-up and first OS product release. BeOS was designed to be a replacement or alternate OS for Mac boxes and later it was ported over to PC's with version 3.

As for version 5...haven't read too much on it. Only know it will be free and I will try it. Good thing I will have 2 boxes

Jammrock

[DentyCracker]

Linux and BeOS right now are the only 2 OSes I have that run stably on my aforementioned crippled machine (limited HD space, pos SIMMS). Win2k installs but gives occasional memory dumps, win98 won't install properly. When it fails (98) and I go into Safe mode and ESC to see himem say unreliable memory found at address blah blah blah I kind of believe it's the RAM, plus I had the same prob with this RAM in another VA503+. It works in the PCCHIPS mobo, go figure.

Anyway I really hope (in vain probably) that BeOS gets supported, a pity to see it go to waste. BeOS on Crusoe is mouthwatering for a laptop or internet appliance. I bought 4.0, got the free upgrade to 4.5 and most certainly shall download 5.0. I ain't running it from within windows though. I may not even test that feature (who am I trying to kid) I'll give it its own partition. Linux is getting easier. Mandrake 7 SOUNDS as if it could be pretty good (Automounting, multimedia enhancements, etc) may be worth fooling around with.
I will say this in favour of Linux :- The difference in usability between RH5.2 and Mandrake 6.1 was large (to me) so it's on the improve. If linux developers really decide that they want it to become less geeky it can be done. I find though that MacMillan tends to be pooh poohed by the linux majority. Of all the Linux variants I've used (I do not program) Mandrake seems user friendly but also allows you to compile stuff and doesn't sacrifice security like corel linux. Damn that was a long post.

[Rags]

Hi all,

Very interesting thread.....I have some things to add for letting MO out.

Linux---A very commendable OS that has a LOT of support from independents, and a lot of potential, just not quite there yet.
Win2K---Very nice OS, stable, fast, easy....too bad MS didn't stick with their guns on integration of 9x and NT, then we would have one HELL of an OS.
Win98---Very easy, the most compatible, a little work to get it stable and mantained.
BeOS---Very fresh OS that is very quick, and probably has the most potential at this time to uproot MS. Yes, it is a new OS, but it does have strong UNIX roots.
MacOSX---YTBD

Rags