Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Local Area Network

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Bill Polhemus wrote:
> NT sucks. How else can I put it? It is unstable, it is difficult to scale, it
> costs great gobs of money to "support", it is proprietary and thus can change
> direction on the whim of Microsoft. Look at Windows 2000. Like NT 4.0 before it,
> it was this HUGE departure from its predecessor (read "we fixed some bugs, now
> go find more").
Not so Bill, just isn't true.  We have had NT on our
server for 5 years now and never had any problems
whatsoever with it.  As far as money to support it,
again, the cost to us has been nearly zero.  When a
significant update has been issued, our
administrator comes in and installs it, maybe one
hour of his time.  That has happened 3 times in 5
years.  As far a scaling goes, why would you care
about scaling, being a small office and all.  And
even for a office our size, scaling is simply not an
issue.  And what limitations NT did have with
scaling, have now been resolved with Windows 2000.  

> I have tried to set up simple networking using Windows NT 4.0, and failed.
> I set up Linux in about one week, including all the software needed for Internet
> serving, as well as local networking. It was no picnic, but compared to Windows
> NT--where only if you pay huge bucks can you get support--it was actually
> easier.

It took you a week to set up Linux???? :)  Oh my
God!!  Maybe the problem isn't with the software! :)

Our administrator set up NT in less than a day.  And
that is on our 15 station network at work.  
I set up our home peer to peer network (3 stations,
printer, scanner, DSL hub) in less than 3 hours.  If
you got some help from someone who knows what they
are doing, you could probably avoid a whole lot of
grief and problems.

> Windows NT is for large shops that do not care how much money they spend on IT
> maintenance per year, just so long as they have it budgeted. If you want "lean
> and mean" and HUGE bang for the buck, you will go with Linux. There's just no
> argument available to you that indicates otherwise.

Well, excuse me, but I do in fact care about cost. 
So in at least ONE case, someone has selected NT as
their server software thinking that this was the
best way to go.  When you break the cost down per
station and then spread it out over 3 years, the
cost is very small.  And it has been well worth it,
because it has in fact required very little

If you are going to set the system up yourself and
are not real computer savvy, and if you only have a
few stations, then I agree Linux may be the front
runner.  But if you are hooking a 15 station network
up, you should seriously consider NT, Novell, and
possibly Linux also.

There are in fact TONS of arguments for using NT
over Linux in the setting we are discussing.  You
remind me of my 7 year old son, he thinks if you
ignore the truth and repeat a lie enough times, it
will become true.


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** 
*   Read list FAQ at: 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) to the list, send email to 
*   admin(--nospam--at) and in the body of the message type 
*   "join seaint" (no quotes). To Unsubscribe, send email 
*   to admin(--nospam--at) and in the body of the message 
*   type "leave seaint" (no quotes). For questions, send 
*   email to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********