*BSD News Article 57962


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!news.sprintlink.net!news1.cris.com!news
From: Mark Hunnibell <markh@connix.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: BSDI Vs. NT... NT looses big
Date: 22 Dec 1995 20:37:43 GMT
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4bf4un$mcm@spectator.cris.com>
References: <taxfree.3.00C439A1@primenet.com> <4bdd76$a04@news.voicenet.com> <4be6m1$lal@nike.volvo.se>
NNTP-Posting-Host: crc3-fddi.cris.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1 (Windows; U; 16bit)
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:1807 comp.unix.advocacy:12594

peter@cyklop.volvo.se (peter hakanson) wrote:

>Ever tried to measure / compare NT and unix in performance ?
>
>I feel there is a difference

Maybe someone has a valid answer for this or its already been discussed, 
but my guess is that if NT was as versatile as some of you are saying, 
Microsoft *surely* would have preferred using it as the O/S for the WWW 
servers it installed for the rollout of Windows95.  If *Microsoft* agreed 
that BSDI 2.x was a better solution, what else is there left to be said?

Just a thought.

Mark Hunnibell
markh@connix.com