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