Re: 90GB table on Windows 2000

Jim Stern wrote:

> Damn right... NT is definitely a no no for real critical applications, too
> many variables for the O/S to be stable.

Please quantify... I would think that having to deal with /etc conf files and kernel parameters results in many more variables than what there are on NT/XP. That makes Unix a lot more unstable using your argument.

We can also extend your argument to databases. Oracle has tons more variables than SQL-Server. Thus, it should be more unstable...

I agree with Nial and Howard. The stability of an operating system has less to do with the actual operating system itself, and much more to do with the ability of the person administrating it.

As for a no-no rulling critical aps on NT.. that is disproven by many sites that are doing just that very succussfully - running corporate critical applications on NT/XP.

Techie wise - give me Unix instead. I have to run Win2000 on my office system. So I run it. Inside a nice little VM on Linux (VMWare is utterly froody).

But what we consider as geek candy and techy kewl, matter little ito cold and hard business requirements (which does not exist solely out of technical requirements btw).

NT/XP can do the job, periold. No matter how much some of us may personally dislike it.

--
Billy