Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 06:48:16 +0000 (GMT) From: Rick Hamell <hamellr@heorot.1nova.com> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Unix 2000... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009280644560.37676-100000@heorot.1nova.com> In-Reply-To: <xzp7l7v9wvi.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I seem to understand that the process is far from completion. The > > difficulties on the part of M$ clearly show that NT is decidedly not > > the right tool for the job. If they are bent on wasting time (and > > money) on this project, then so be it. > > AFAIK, they're transitioning to Windows 2000, not NT. All through this class it's been; "This is what NT does wrong, 2000 does it better." Which then turns out to be a pseudo-Unix way of doing it... :) The instructor is constantly rolling his eyes and complaining about the legendary NT stability and is fond of telling stories where NT didn't work, but by GOD 2000 did... :) Then I point out that I know of companies who've been doing the same thing on Unix, with less hardware for a long time. He also points out that you should have at least 256 megs of RAM and 2, preferabbly 4 gigs of harddrive space for a straight install! I started laughing at that point..... Rick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0009280644560.37676-100000>