|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Funny, that's what we were saying in the late 80's about IBM and mainframes
when Microsoft started coming on strong.
Kent
-----Original Message-----
From: M. Simms <prosys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Chris Cheatham <nchrisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Omega List
<omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 8:26 AM
Subject: RE: No rush for Win 2000
This marks the end of an era for Bill Gates and Microsoft......
their guns are empty....and the gunslingers have arrived in town fully
loaded....
Linux, IBM, Java, Sun Micro.
"Buh-Bye" as they say in the airline biz....
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Cheatham [mailto:nchrisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 6:04 PM
> To: Omega List
> Subject: No rush for Win 2000
>
>
> For all those who can't wait to get win 2k, you should check out
> page 132 of
> the current PC Mag...
>
> "In desktop performance Win 2k was mostly unremarkable compared with NT4"
>
> To summarize, their tests were Win 2k v. NT v. 98 SE. NT was slightly
> faster in most configs than Win 2k. The exception was FAT w/256K (versus
> lesser mem in the other tests) and in tests of web site creation apps. 98
> lost.
>
> However the win 2k server performance was much better than NT.
>
> Also of note to NT users was that the FAT performance was consistently
> better than NTFS with either OS.
>
> CC
>
>
>
>
>
|