From kragen@dnaco.net Thu Jul 16 08:51:41 1998 Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 08:51:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Kragen To: Michael LaMorte cc: rebecalist Subject: RE: lose98 In-Reply-To: <19980716104041703.AAA20228@[140.254.113.201]> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Keywords: X-UID: 553 Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 16 Jul 1998, Michael LaMorte wrote: > On 7/15/98 12:50 PM, Kragen said: > >If it's Win95, WinNT doesn't crash much, which blows Win95 away. And > >it's possible to implement security policies on it. > > I think you mean "as much". Our NT server at work (which I vehemently > opposed in favor of a Linux server) BSOD's about once or twice a week. > And when you start it back up, all the modification dates on all the > files and folders have been reset to the same date and time. And let's > not talk about problems with print spooling, network-to-network copies, > broken aliases (shortcuts to you Windows folk), and other oddities that > make life a pain. If memory serves correctly, our Novell 3.14 server > might have crashed once every three months, and provided more dependable > service than NT does. That's about the same as my experience with NT. > >If it's Linux, WinNT has a pretty GUI. I don't think that blows Linux > >away, though. WinNT also runs Win16 and Win32 applications *much* > >better than Linux does, which blows Linux away for many purposes. > > You can give Linux any UI you want. I particularly like the AfterStep UI, > which is modeled on the NeXTStep/OpenStep UI. I use Afterstep myself. But it's not a GUI; it's just a window manager. Afterstep+NeXTaw approaches a NeXTStep GUI, but there are lots of apps that don't use Xaw (just because the default look is butt-ugly). > As for the apps... Linux has their own apps, Yes. So does the Mac. > and I've seen WinXX apps running on Linux just as nicely as on 95/NT. Your options for running Win16 or Win32 apps on Linux are: - Win 3.x in dosemu in real mode (not protected mode). Disadvantages: - requires Win 3.x license - not too fast - in a window - WINE. Disadvantages: - even more buggy than Win 3.x itself (for Win16) - very incomplete for Win32, and still quite buggy. - TWIN. See WINE. Except Win32 support is *zero*. - WABI. Disadvantages: - No Win32 support - includes Win 3.x license (essentially) - slow - expensive - (something miraculous I don't know about?) If I wanted to run Win16 applications, Linux would definitely not be my first choice. If I wanted to run Win32 applications, Linux would probably be out of the question. WinNT does nicely with these. In contrast, if I wanted to set up a LAN server for MS OS users, Linux or FreeBSD would be my first choice. WinNT would be a distant second, because it's slower and far less reliable. > >If it's the Mac, it's the Win16/Win32 support. > > Well, Macs can read, write, and format Windows media. They can translate > Windows files into their Mac counterparts. Also, there are Mac versions > of the most popular Windows apps, which can open and save in the Windows > counterpart version. And they can run Windows 95 or NT thanks to > VirtualPC, SoftWindows, or a hardware card. Sounds like a reasonable solution. Kragen