Full Version: UNIX vs. NT
First I request everyone to just be neutral on that. And please this is not intended to start flame wars. Just be neutral and do not think about Microsoft or Vista/XP etc. Just wish to know your opinions, neutral opinions, about Unix and the like i.e. BSD, Solaris, OS X, Linux this we would call one group i.e. UNIX and NT on which Windows are based. What do you think which one of these two is more stable? Unix or NT? Or are they equal. I think they are equal in terms of stability. What you think?
In my personal experience Unix/BSD/Linux is miles ahead of NT in regards of stability and security.
I had typed up a very thought-out response, but stupid Firefox lost it.
Basically, it goes back to the idea that it's not the object's fault, but how it is used. NT is just as stable as Unix kernels, it's the implementation of the kernel that makes the difference. A poor Unix-like OS (like Ubuntu) is just as unstable and temperamental as a poor NT-based OS (say, Windows XP).
Most of you are too young to remember, but Windows NT 4.0 was and still is one of the fastest and most stable operating systems ever created. Microsoft did with NT what they should have done with Vista: they said "screw DOS, screw backwards compatibility, screw legacy devices, and screw the incompetent software developers; we're doing this OS right, so just STFU, buy supported hardware, and use it correctly!" We have customers still using it today because it's still running like a champ, and there are no big incentives to switch to Windows 2003/20008.
Basically, it goes back to the idea that it's not the object's fault, but how it is used. NT is just as stable as Unix kernels, it's the implementation of the kernel that makes the difference. A poor Unix-like OS (like Ubuntu) is just as unstable and temperamental as a poor NT-based OS (say, Windows XP).
Most of you are too young to remember, but Windows NT 4.0 was and still is one of the fastest and most stable operating systems ever created. Microsoft did with NT what they should have done with Vista: they said "screw DOS, screw backwards compatibility, screw legacy devices, and screw the incompetent software developers; we're doing this OS right, so just STFU, buy supported hardware, and use it correctly!" We have customers still using it today because it's still running like a champ, and there are no big incentives to switch to Windows 2003/20008.
QUOTE (InorganicMatter @ Aug 27 2008, 11:16 AM) 
I had typed up a very thought-out response, but stupid Firefox lost it.
Basically, it goes back to the idea that it's not the object's fault, but how it is used. NT is just as stable as Unix kernels, it's the implementation of the kernel that makes the difference. A poor Unix-like OS (like Ubuntu) is just as unstable and temperamental as a poor NT-based OS (say, Windows XP).
Most of you are too young to remember, but Windows NT 4.0 was and still is one of the fastest and most stable operating systems ever created. Microsoft did with NT what they should have done with Vista: they said "screw DOS, screw backwards compatibility, screw legacy devices, and screw the incompetent software developers; we're doing this OS right, so just STFU, buy supported hardware, and use it correctly!" We have customers still using it today because it's still running like a champ, and there are no big incentives to switch to Windows 2003/20008.
Basically, it goes back to the idea that it's not the object's fault, but how it is used. NT is just as stable as Unix kernels, it's the implementation of the kernel that makes the difference. A poor Unix-like OS (like Ubuntu) is just as unstable and temperamental as a poor NT-based OS (say, Windows XP).
Most of you are too young to remember, but Windows NT 4.0 was and still is one of the fastest and most stable operating systems ever created. Microsoft did with NT what they should have done with Vista: they said "screw DOS, screw backwards compatibility, screw legacy devices, and screw the incompetent software developers; we're doing this OS right, so just STFU, buy supported hardware, and use it correctly!" We have customers still using it today because it's still running like a champ, and there are no big incentives to switch to Windows 2003/20008.
Yeah I loved those days. Well said.
Completely OTT
@MoC:
Can we have a Due date on that new sig, or is it a EFI-X thing...
SticMAN
@MoC:
Can we have a Due date on that new sig, or is it a EFI-X thing...
SticMAN
QUOTE (-MoC- @ Aug 27 2008, 06:10 PM)
Yeah I loved those days. Well said.
QUOTE (WinMacLin @ Aug 27 2008, 05:14 AM)
I think they are equal in terms of stability.
When considering an out-of-the-box GUI enabled computing experience, I believe there are many Linux offerings that test higher in terms of stability.
In my opinion, where Windows really goes south is its GUI and all the supportive junk that goes along with it. The underlying technology is actually a lot smarter and flexible than you'd think if all you've done is point and click your way around Windows. In the hands of an expert, the command line is a beautiful thing... turning a mushy, sometimes buggy, graphical "adventure" into a rock solid back-end powerhouse.
QUOTE (InorganicMatter @ Aug 27 2008, 05:16 PM)
Most of you are too young to remember, but Windows NT 4.0 was and still is one of the fastest and most stable operating systems ever created.
I think the DEC developers did a nice job... only for microsoft to {censored} it up, again.
QUOTE (InorganicMatter @ Aug 27 2008, 03:16 PM)
Basically, it goes back to the idea that it's not the object's fault, but how it is used. NT is just as stable as Unix kernels, it's the implementation of the kernel that makes the difference. A poor Unix-like OS (like Ubuntu) is just as unstable and temperamental as a poor NT-based OS (say, Windows XP).
Exactly.
I still have my disks of WINDOWS NT 4.0 
QUOTE (InorganicMatter @ Aug 27 2008, 03:16 PM)
I had typed up a very thought-out response, but stupid Firefox lost it.
Basically, it goes back to the idea that it's not the object's fault, but how it is used. NT is just as stable as Unix kernels, it's the implementation of the kernel that makes the difference. A poor Unix-like OS (like Ubuntu) is just as unstable and temperamental as a poor NT-based OS (say, Windows XP).
Most of you are too young to remember, but Windows NT 4.0 was and still is one of the fastest and most stable operating systems ever created. Microsoft did with NT what they should have done with Vista: they said "screw DOS, screw backwards compatibility, screw legacy devices, and screw the incompetent software developers; we're doing this OS right, so just STFU, buy supported hardware, and use it correctly!" We have customers still using it today because it's still running like a champ, and there are no big incentives to switch to Windows 2003/20008.
Basically, it goes back to the idea that it's not the object's fault, but how it is used. NT is just as stable as Unix kernels, it's the implementation of the kernel that makes the difference. A poor Unix-like OS (like Ubuntu) is just as unstable and temperamental as a poor NT-based OS (say, Windows XP).
Most of you are too young to remember, but Windows NT 4.0 was and still is one of the fastest and most stable operating systems ever created. Microsoft did with NT what they should have done with Vista: they said "screw DOS, screw backwards compatibility, screw legacy devices, and screw the incompetent software developers; we're doing this OS right, so just STFU, buy supported hardware, and use it correctly!" We have customers still using it today because it's still running like a champ, and there are no big incentives to switch to Windows 2003/20008.
You say Windows XP as a poor implementation of NT kernels which makes it unstable and a poor NT based OS? How? Most peope say that Windows XP was the best and the most stable OS Microsoft ever made!
I remember the days of NT4 and still have my workstation & server disks, IMHO i think unix/bsd is much more reliable/stable than NT4. Windows NT4 (server&workstation) when not rebooted regularly weird things always happened, like sticking start menu's and unresponsive mouse clicks. Even though network services would still be operable (dns, dhcp routing etc...) the gui would always seem to develop issues the longer the uptime. Windows 2000 Server was much nicer than NT4.
using OpenBSD on the other hand the uptime was years with 0 issues, with rock solid services uptime & lightening fast operations.
A good Linux server that i've found to be very reliable/stable/secure with many server features is SME Server. SME takes 10 minutes to install, including all networking services like routing, firewall, mail, spam assassin, virus scanning, web, samba, afp and a load more & also is all managed via web interface.
Leopard Server is also very nice with almost identical services to SME right out of the box but with a much prettier interface
take your pick
using OpenBSD on the other hand the uptime was years with 0 issues, with rock solid services uptime & lightening fast operations.
A good Linux server that i've found to be very reliable/stable/secure with many server features is SME Server. SME takes 10 minutes to install, including all networking services like routing, firewall, mail, spam assassin, virus scanning, web, samba, afp and a load more & also is all managed via web interface.
Leopard Server is also very nice with almost identical services to SME right out of the box but with a much prettier interface
take your pick
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.