Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 13:28:35 -0700 From: Ice_cold <ice_cold@cryogen.com> To: "newbies@FreeBSD.ORG" <newbies@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: FAT32/VFAT in 2.2.7 Message-ID: <35B3A873.4E7FB816@cryogen.com> References: <XFMail.980715230612.dburr@POBoxes.com> <3.0.5.32.19980716163639.0080e100@mx.serv.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--------------DD880AD58C55BC00ED8FEB81
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Tim,
I am an experience NT 4.0 user on multiple stations (sence I'm sysadmin...)
and disagree with some of what you said.
<snip>
Oh, did I mention that NT4 is a bloated pig, even in 64 megs RAM? I once
did a test on my 64 meg machine, I set up just a 10 meg swap file as an
experiment (giving NT 74 megs RAM to work with), and with only Netscape
running (with a 1024k memory cache), got an error message that NT was out
of memory and to close some applications {boggle}....
<snip>
Like all OS's you have to know something about how they work before saying
weather or not the are "bloated pig". It is horably true that NT is a horably
power hungry OS. However I have it running on multiple Intel100's with 32 megs
of RAM and have not had the problem you just described. (Note: 20+ meg files
are common in at least two departments where I work). This is due to the
virtual memory in which is stored on your hard drive (how large of one did you
have?). The max is around 96 megs on a 1.6gig and I will assume that it goes
down as the hard drive gets smaller and vice versa. Obviusly the smaller this
nummber the smaller the program you can have open.
<snip>
Ask anyone with regular NT4 experience on multiple
machines about its stability and you'll find that it's a myth.
<snip>
NT stability is not a "myth". In fact my NT machines stay up one hell of a lot
longer than my win95/win3.1x and DOS machines (note I do not add FreeBSD/UNIX
to this list). In fact the longest I have had an NT4.0 SP3 machine running
without it going down (I had to upgrade it) was about a year (give or take a
mounth). This is much better than the standard 95 minutes win95 lasts
(joke:-).
It is true that I would never (let me repeat: never) use NT as a server with
any importance. The closest NT will ever come to my server room is the Proxy I
have it on. As you said it is to power hungry to run multiuser application
with any type of effictivness (sorry hard core NT fans). For this I either run
Novels Netware (which is great after a fasion) or UNIX. (I'm just now playing
with FreeBSD and wasn't here when the UNIX boxes where installed....isn't that
always the way?). I also dislike the security protocols within NT4. When a new
user is added to the list they have rights to everything and you must ristrict
anything you don't whant them into (this is on a network not setting up a new
workstation user account). However this might have been fixed with SP3, or SP4
(if it's out yet, I don't believe so).
In short:
Do not critisize an OS you have only spent 3 hours working on. Each OS has
distict advantages and disadvantages that are better suited in one place then
anouther. Completly disregarding NT4 and shouting it to the world is like me
saying "I hate FreeBSD becouse it isn't user freindly enough for me to
implement it within my whole network. It's ugly black screen just dosn't do it
with anyone." (By the way I don't feel this way, though I would never let a
standard user touch it, I couldn't stand teaching them to get there mail let
alone what command to tye to get into a word prossesor).
And how did you feel you needed to flaunt your feeling when you heard that
FAT32 and VFAT are going to be supported in 2.2.7? The whole reson FreeBSD is
as good as it is, is due to it's versitility.
Tim Gerchmez wrote:
> At 12:55 PM 7/16/98 -0700, Kevin G. Eliuk wrote:
>
> >Six month ahead of WinNT ;-}
>
> Good for FreeBSD advocacy, I suppose, but to hell with WinNT from my
> standpoint. I hate Windows NT 4.0 and would actually rather use Win95
> (OSR2, with patches) for most kinds of desktop-type uses, given the choice
> between the two. Ask anyone with regular NT4 experience on multiple
> machines about its stability and you'll find that it's a myth. Sometimes
> NT4 crashes while simply running a screensaver. I personally despise it -
> I won't have it on any of my machines, period.
>
>
>
> --
> My web site starts at http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/index.html -
> lots of goodies for everyone, have a look if you have the time.
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-newbies" in the body of the message
--------------DD880AD58C55BC00ED8FEB81
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
Tim,
<P>I am an experience NT 4.0 user on multiple stations (sence I'm sysadmin...)
and disagree with <I>some</I> of what you said.
<P><snip>
<BR>Oh, did I mention that NT4 is a bloated pig, even in 64 megs RAM?
I once
<BR>did a test on my 64 meg machine, I set up just a 10 meg swap file as
an
<BR>experiment (giving NT 74 megs RAM to work with), and with only Netscape
<BR>running (with a 1024k memory cache), got an error message that NT was
out
<BR>of memory and to close some applications {boggle}....
<BR><snip>
<P>Like all OS's you have to know something about how they work before
saying weather or not the are "bloated pig". It is horably true that NT
is a horably power hungry OS. However I have it running on multiple Intel100's
with 32 megs of RAM and have not had the problem you just described. (Note:
20+ meg files are common in at least two departments where I work). This
is due to the virtual memory in which is stored on your hard drive (how
large of one did you have?). The max is around 96 megs on a 1.6gig and
I will assume that it goes down as the hard drive gets smaller and vice
versa. Obviusly the smaller this nummber the smaller the program you can
have open.
<P><snip>
<BR>Ask anyone with regular NT4 experience on multiple
<BR>machines about its stability and you'll find that it's a myth.
<BR><snip>
<P>NT stability is not a "myth". In fact my NT machines stay up one hell
of a lot longer than my win95/win3.1x and DOS machines (note I do not add
FreeBSD/UNIX to this list). In fact the longest I have had an NT4.0 SP3
machine running without it going down (I had to upgrade it) was about a
year (give or take a mounth). This is much better than the standard
95 minutes win95 lasts (joke:-).
<P>It is true that I would never (let me repeat: never) use NT as a server
with any importance. The closest NT will ever come to my server room is
the Proxy I have it on. As you said it is to power hungry to run multiuser
application with any type of effictivness (sorry hard core NT fans). For
this I either run Novels Netware (which is great after a fasion) or UNIX.
(I'm just now playing with FreeBSD and wasn't here when the UNIX boxes
where installed....isn't that always the way?). I also dislike the security
protocols within NT4. When a new user is added to the list they have rights
to everything and you must ristrict anything you don't whant them into
(this is on a network not setting up a new workstation user account). However
this might have been fixed with SP3, or SP4 (if it's out yet, I don't believe
so).
<P>In short:
<BR> Do not critisize an OS you have only spent 3 hours
working on. Each OS has distict advantages and disadvantages that are better
suited in one place then anouther. Completly disregarding NT4 and shouting
it to the world is like me saying "I hate FreeBSD becouse it isn't user
freindly enough for me to implement it within my whole network. It's ugly
black screen just dosn't do it with anyone." (By the way I don't feel this
way, though I would never let a standard user touch it, I couldn't stand
teaching them to get there mail let alone what command to tye to get into
a word prossesor).
<P>And how did you feel you needed to flaunt your feeling when you heard
that FAT32 and VFAT are going to be supported in 2.2.7? The whole reson
FreeBSD is as good as it is, is due to it's versitility.
<P>Tim Gerchmez wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>At 12:55 PM 7/16/98 -0700, Kevin G. Eliuk wrote:
<P>>Six month ahead of WinNT ;-}
<P>Good for FreeBSD advocacy, I suppose, but to hell with WinNT from my
<BR>standpoint. I hate Windows NT 4.0 and would actually rather use
Win95
<BR>(OSR2, with patches) for most kinds of desktop-type uses, given the
choice
<BR>between the two. Ask anyone with regular NT4 experience on multiple
<BR>machines about its stability and you'll find that it's a myth.
Sometimes
<BR>NT4 crashes while simply running a screensaver. I personally
despise it -
<BR>I won't have it on any of my machines, period.
<BR>
<BR>
<P>--
<BR>My web site starts at <A HREF="http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/index.html">http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/index.html</A>;
-
<BR>lots of goodies for everyone, have a look if you have the time.
<P>To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
<BR>with "unsubscribe freebsd-newbies" in the body of the message</BLOCKQUOTE>
</HTML>
--------------DD880AD58C55BC00ED8FEB81--
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-newbies" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?35B3A873.4E7FB816>