Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 00:33:26 -0400 From: Cat Okita <cat@uunet.ca> To: Marty Leisner <leisner@sdsp.mc.xerox.com> Cc: Craig Shaver <craig@ProGroup.COM>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Opinions? NT VS UNIX, NT SUCKS SOMETIMES Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960720002727.24159y-100000@troll.uunet.ca> In-Reply-To: <9607200027.AA14374@gemini.sdsp.mc.xerox.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Marty Leisner wrote: > NT is fine in many regards...but I just have an NT 3.51 installation go south, > and the "repair" mode can't seem to find my CD-ROM... (...) > I found win95 pretty reasonable in many ways (I use it somewhat, mainly to > run win32 applications...and I need to network with it...) In many cases > installation was pretty plug and chug and it seems much more reliable than > windows 3.1... ...except Win95 isn't reliable on a network at all, has no concept of user or file level secrity, and a spectacularly useless debug mode... Personally, I'm miles happier with the 'hybrid' network we have, which includes PC's running NT, BSDi, FreeBSD and Solaris x86, together with a variety of servers running IRIX, SunOS, Solaris and OSF/1. The only thing we use Win95 for is laptops, since they're often required to run standalone. This takes care of the sales/marketing/admin folk, who think that unix is scary, and aren't too sure about PC's at all, as well as the techies who'd die if they didn't have unix... Both NT and Unix have appropriate places for use...and appropriate users... Cat
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.93.960720002727.24159y-100000>