Winblows XP and such: what's the point?

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

I still remember my old P-100 with 32MB RAM. It starts up and shutdown way faster than WinXP with 512 MB of RAM!

And DOS games ran smoothly with 8MB. Granted 640x480 starts to slow down unless you have Pentium Pro, but when 3dfx came to picture, the problem solved.

So why the fuck Micro$oft created bloatware OS on the first place? What's the point? WinXP requires a minimum of 256MB of RAM. What's the whole point?




Office standpoint, you just basically do the same Wording and Excelling as you did with Win 98. Why wasting such amount of resources for OS overhead? I'm using Office 97 on Win98 with 256 MB of RAM, and boy, it flies! Why should I "upgrade" to Win XP, when I can run Word or Excel faster with less-consuming OS?




Gaming standpoint, my games run fast on Win98, particularly since it doesn't require such amount of overhead.

Alright, new games run faster on Win XP, but I guess because they are designed for XP. My question is why? Are those new games really take advantage of Win XP, or it's just for "compatibility reason"?

Granted Win98 only supports up to 512MB of RAM, but why not creating a Win98-alike OS with large RAM support? It's a 32-bit OS, for cyring out loud! 32-bit OS should support up to 4GB, am I correct?

I'm thinking of this; the first Playstation runs with TWO Megabytes of RAM. Also, early Windows 95 games can run either in DOS or Win 95, and they always require more RAM to run in Windows 95. In fact, they're always run faster in DOS. Even Playstation 2 only has 32 MB of RAM.

Do we really need multitasking and such for games? My impression is games are single-tasking applications; you ain't typing with Word when playing Quake. What are actually the benefit of running games in bloatware OS like Win XP?




Server standpoint; Oh, well. We have Windows 2000 and 2003 server and such. I still don't understand; what's the point of decorating your SERVER with fancy GUIs or such? My friend set up a Linux-based proxy server on Pentium 100, for crying out loud.

In fact, when setting up Oracle, I would propose for the lowest Winblows version as possible (as far as compatibility allows), because I want to keep OS overhead as low as possible. Why wasting system resources for the OS, when they're badly needed by the database?




So I really don't understand Micro$$oft strategy. Alright, we have Moore's Law and such, and computers would keep more and more powerful, bigger RAM and processors.

But what's the point of devouring such resources with OS? Wouldn't it be better to create "slim" OS, leaving those huge RAM and fast CPU for applications. so they would run faster?

[B4UTRUST]

A lot of it depends entirely on what you do with your computer I think. For instance, I multitask like a bitch regardless of OS and yes I have been known to be playing a game while doing something else, like watching a movie, or programming. I'm just that damned talented damnit!

And if you want a good M$ server OS, Win2k Pro all the way. None of the flashy crap that kills the system like XP, infinately more stable then NT, ME, or 98. It works, it's simple, it's stable, boom.

But you also have to remember that this Micro$oft and if they can figure out a way to infinite loop your ass into a perpetual cycle of upgrades they'll do it. Hell they have done it. There really is no need for it, but that's just the nature of computer marketing unfortunatly. Which is how you end up like me, with a near blood-lust for bleeding edge.

But hey, we can all just do ourselves the favor of saying "Fuck Gates" and just switch to a flavor of 'nix or BSD right? ^_^

[Ra]

As long as Micro$oft can make money from it, they'll do it. In their business strategy, eye-candy software sells, and everyone is doing it now.

I have a question, though: if you run XP using the old (Win 98) style, rather than the eye-candy style, will it improve performance? Likely, it won't, but I'm just asking.
- Ra

[Destructionator XV]

I know a guy who was using WinXP Pro on his P3 machine. I told him I can make it start up in 10 seconds if I can just have my way with it in 30 minutes.

I installed Windows 98. It went fast, and he could still do ALL the stuff he was doing on XP.

On my new computer, I spent a few hours downloading Slackware Linux. I installed it on my Athlon 64 box, it ran beautifully. I installed it on my Pentium 1 200 MHz box, it ran beautifully. I installed it on my Pentium 120 box used as my web server, it ran beautifully. That is the way to go, baby!



Well, now, why is XP so resource hogging? Lets be fair: the OS does do alot more than the Win98 OS. But the average person doesn't need all this stuff. They upgrade because devlopers don't know what they are doing and the average person is a sheep.

Much of XP's idle resources are wasted on special effects. Mouse shadow, menu effects: all fluff that wastes resourcers and adds little to the actual use.

NTFS kicks the crap out of FAT32, but it also takes more resources to use. This is a real upgrade, one that Win2k had done pretty well.

Also, M$ has been adding stuff on to the Windows frame, and not optimizing as much of what they have. This slows things down, too.

[B4UTRUST]

See my problem is every time I switch to Linux I get fucked hardcore because I get it installed and then can't figure out WTF to do with it! LoL

[Destructionator XV]

I have a question, though: if you run XP using the old (Win 98) style, rather than the eye-candy style, will it improve performance? Likely, it won't, but I'm just asking.
- Ra

It does help it a little. If you spend some time turning off the eye candy stuff and clearing out unneeded files, XP can have decent performance. Still not as good as 98 though.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

and yes I have been known to be playing a game while doing something else, like watching a movie, or programming. I'm just that damned talented damnit!

But.... aw, come on. Turn-based strategy does not count! :P

And if you want a good M$ server OS, Win2k Pro all the way. None of the flashy crap that kills the system like XP, infinately more stable then NT, ME, or 98. It works, it's simple, it's stable, boom.

Although it's quite a bitch when playing games, but you're right. Win2K Pro is the most stable M$ OS out there.

But you also have to remember that this Micro$oft and if they can figure out a way to infinite loop your ass into a perpetual cycle of upgrades they'll do it. Hell they have done it. There really is no need for it, but that's just the nature of computer marketing unfortunatly. Which is how you end up like me, with a near blood-lust for bleeding edge.

That's what I keep wondering: what benefit Microsoft would get by the pushing people to buy new hardware? If anything, the one makes the money would be Intel.

Wouldn't it be more beneficial by lowering the system requirements, thus enabling more people to buy the OS?

As long as Micro$oft can make money from it, they'll do it. In their business strategy, eye-candy software sells, and everyone is doing it now.

But you can do eye candy in 98 as well. In fact, there's an XP skin for 98.

I have a question, though: if you run XP using the old (Win 98) style, rather than the eye-candy style, will it improve performance? Likely, it won't, but I'm just asking.
- Ra

Nope. Not a shit. Oh, trust me. It's nothing more than different desktop theme anyway. :(

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

I know a guy who was using WinXP Pro on his P3 machine. I told him I can make it start up in 10 seconds if I can just have my way with it in 30 minutes.

I installed Windows 98. It went fast, and he could still do ALL the stuff he was doing on XP.

Now I really LOVE the story!! :thumbsup

[Ra]

It does help it a little. If you spend some time turning off the eye candy stuff and clearing out unneeded files, XP can have decent performance. Still not as good as 98 though.

Is there any way to turn off that damned mouse shadow? You mentioned that as eating system performance.

[B4UTRUST]

But.... aw, come on. Turn-based strategy does not count! :P

Please... Try Desert Combat ;) Now I do admit it's rather difficult once you start getting into flying but otherwise it's not that hard. ^_^

And as to how M$ benefits from the development of new hardware, think about it like this. Microsoft and Intel are for all intents and purposes buttbuddies. They're the technology marketing equivilent of a pair of rabbits. And then we have their partner in threesom-I mean crime, the video game market.

Video games are one of, if not the, largest PC market currently. Now game developers push their software to the cutting edge of technology, making games and video graphics near photo-realistic with full working physics engines, realistic cell shading and vector shading, natural lights, etc. This causes hardware designers, like ATI, nVidea, Intel, AMD, etc to push themselves harder to come out with new hardware that's not only capable of supporting and playing these awesome games, but hardware that runs it beautifully and better then the next company so they gain customer loyalty. And then Microsoft develops an OS that takes advantage of the increased hardware capabilities and like-wise allows games installed to take advantage of the same. People buy the hardware, buy the software, install, play, and salivate of more. Game designers make the next better game and the cycle repeats.

What does Microsoft truely gain from this? about 70% of the PC user population are technological morons. They couldn't format their own HD or install a video card if their life depends on it. So as opposed to going online or to a computer store and buying the latest hardware and installing it themselves, they're often forced to resort to buying a premade system from a store or online from a company like gateway, dell, HP or compaq. And guess who is right there pushing their OS to all these corps? That's right, the user friendly Microsoft Windows. Microsoft gets to put their OS onto every computer sold by these companies. They increase their revenue and profits at the same time.

So there you go.

[Destructionator XV]

It does help it a little. If you spend some time turning off the eye candy stuff and clearing out unneeded files, XP can have decent performance. Still not as good as 98 though.

Is there any way to turn off that damned mouse shadow? You mentioned that as eating system performance.

Yeah. Go to control panel -> mouse, and the shadow is a check box in there.

I am running Linux right now, so I might be a little off on the specifics. I'll get exact instructions and benefits next time I have Winblows running (probably in an emulator where it belongs).

[Ra]

Yeah. Go to control panel -> mouse, and the shadow is a check box in there.

D'oh! I was just there and didn't even see the checkbox. However, I found it the second time. Thanks.
- Ra

[Batman]

I am running Linux right now, so I might be a little off on the specifics. I'll get exact instructions and benefits next time I have Winblows running (probably in an emulator where it belongs).

If Mouse shadow is what I think it is, it's in system control under mouse, in the pointer options tab(or something to that effect, I'm running the german version).
Though on any machine that can handle XP decently I don't see it making much of a difference.

[Destructionator XV]

On my mother's Dell (with a celeron and sucky integrated graphics) it made about a 2% boost in average CPU idle time when just wiggling the mouse.

that is probably abnormal, but even so, if you take off many little things they add up.

[Batman]

that is probably abnormal, but even so, if you take off many little things they add up.

Tell me about it. In the bad old days of 486es I managed to 90% plus my CPU usage by simply having my Win 3.1 Desktop open thanks to IconHearIt.
On a DX2/100.

[Ace Pace]

My views on this:

The main reason for ANYONE to switch from pre-XP to XP(unless your using 2K) is simple: Stability.
During the 3 years of this PC's existence under Windows XP, the two times I've had crashs were faulty drivers*flames driver site * and faulty hardware. Compare that to Windows 98, where you were lucky if you got BSODed only once a week, that alone is worth the price.

Second, Ease of Use and configurability, stuff that was hidden in pre-XP, is now aviable to tweak and modify, it also gives more features such as NTFS(Faster in my experiance) and better search.

Last, game devs apprently like what Windows XP gives them, their having their own programming related reasons to move to XP, if it gives me better games *silent Hunter 3* then I'm for it.

And don't bring in Office into the discussion its not part of Windows, whatever the bundle sellers may try to say differant.

On the RAM issue, ya, bloat sucks, but if your gaming(and KAN, you ARE gaming) you want as much RAM as you can, and Windows 98 SUCKED, Sucked MAJOR donkey balls. The first REAL OS Microsoft put out(as in,stable,secure, useable in an office enviorment) was Windows 2K.

The PS runs on 2MB, because it runs with a tiny stripped down OS whose only job is to load a CD, you cannot seriously compare a PS to a OS that works on nearly every PC out there.

I won't argue with you about servers, but there your right, Windows XP is NOT a server PC, its kinda of a home network PC, easier to work with and all, but for servers, you have 2K and 2K3. And if your seriously suggesting to have a Win 98/95 OS as a server, I want some of your crack.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

My views on this:

The main reason for ANYONE to switch from pre-XP to XP(unless your using 2K) is simple: Stability.
During the 3 years of this PC's existence under Windows XP, the two times I've had crashs were faulty drivers*flames driver site * and faulty hardware. Compare that to Windows 98, where you were lucky if you got BSODed only once a week, that alone is worth the price.

Well my impression is W2K Workstation is still the most stable Winblows around. Regarding to Win98, my rig is pretty much stable (but frankly my setup is pretty much standard aside of games). The only thing NT-based Winblows is better is in crash recovery; when an app crash in 98, mostly you have to restart the whole OS while in 2000 or XP you can simpy close the crashing app.

Second, Ease of Use and configurability, stuff that was hidden in pre-XP, is now aviable to tweak and modify, it also gives more features such as NTFS(Faster in my experiance) and better search.

Wait, I don't get it. I think XP hides more things than previous version of Winblows. The start menu is an example ("my this" and "my that" while hiding the applications), the control panel is another. And of course, it inherents Win2000 shenanigan of hiding file extensions and system files.

Last, game devs apprently like what Windows XP gives them, their having their own programming related reasons to move to XP, if it gives me better games *silent Hunter 3* then I'm for it.

But what games would benefit from such bloated OS? Alright, I can see the benefit of larger memory support, NFTS, and multi processor support (although not many games support the last one), but do they really need to bloat the OS to support multiprocessing or such? Also, I wonder why Win98 cannot support more than 512 Mb; being a 32-bit OS it should be able to do so.

And don't bring in Office into the discussion its not part of Windows, whatever the bundle sellers may try to say differant.

My point is; we're still doing the same typing and spreadsheeding (aside of games), so what's the point of making a bloated OS? If the OS is not that resource-hungry, those huge RAM and fast CPU can really make us work faster in Excell, for example, instead of being consumed as OS overhead.

On the RAM issue, ya, bloat sucks, but if your gaming(and KAN, you ARE gaming) you want as much RAM as you can, and Windows 98 SUCKED, Sucked MAJOR donkey balls. The first REAL OS Microsoft put out(as in,stable,secure, useable in an office enviorment) was Windows 2K.

Since I'm playing old games, Win98 works fine for me.

But more serious question, do we really need bloated OS for games? Of course we need an OS capable of supporting large RAM and multiprocessing and such, but does it need to be as hungry as WinXP?

Furthermore, do we really need windows approach for gaming OS? Why the likes of Playstation and such requires way less resources than PC?

In fact, long before Win 3.1, Amiga had been a solid gaming platform that offered multiple colors and wave sound (Amiga MOD module, anyone?) while IBM combatibles were still CGA and PC speakers.

The PS runs on 2MB, because it runs with a tiny stripped down OS whose only job is to load a CD, you cannot seriously compare a PS to a OS that works on nearly every PC out there

Alright, never mind my above question then. So I guess the problem with Winblows is the design compromise between multi-tasking apps (office and such) and single tasking apps (games). But again, I still don't understand Microsoft "bloatware" philosohpy. Does it really need a resource-hungry OS to support large RAM and multiprocessing and such?

I guess a specialized gaming OS is some kind of forgotten holy grail; I imagine a "resource-lite", single tasked OS like MSDOS, but with better memory support and driver support.

I mean, look at early Win95 games that support both Win95 and DOS; it always takes less resource to run them in DOS compared to Win95.

Unfortunately gaming development is geared towards Win95 environments these days. DirectX and such. But still, I imagine how those large RAM and CPU would make games run faster with slimmer OS (and games developed for that hypothetical OS, of course).


On a side note, it would be interesting to hypothesize what would happen if Win9x never exist on the first place. See, we had 3dfx at that time, as well as DOS GLide games like Jetfighter III and Tomb Raider. Sound cards like AWE64 don't need drivers to make them run; only environment variables. Of course DOS have 640 KB limitations but it had been long gone since the day of DOS4GW.

So gaming development is geared toward single-tasked, resource lite OS that is DOS. 3dfx competitors like nVidia is developing their DOS-based API because Win95 never exist; probably DOS-based MiniGL like GLQuake becomes the common standard for non-GLide players. DOS4GW is more and more refined to support larger memories and such. Sure they wouldn't be PnP support and such, but who need them in games?

What would happen to gaming today? Would games today run better and faster because those huge resources is not consumed by bloated OS?

I won't argue with you about servers, but there your right, Windows XP is NOT a server PC, its kinda of a home network PC, easier to work with and all, but for servers, you have 2K and 2K3. And if your seriously suggesting to have a Win 98/95 OS as a server, I want some of your crack.

Nope, I would suggest UNIX-based for server. And as long as compatibility allows, I would still choose Win 2000 over Win 2003 for Oracle because the former consumes less system resources.

But of course, I still choose UNIX-based over Win 2000.

Really, I see no point of putting fancy GUI on *servers*, for cying out loud! A PC X-Server and Putty client on my notebook works fine. Who the hell bother doing all the works directly on the server anyway?

[Ace Pace]

My views on this:

The main reason for ANYONE to switch from pre-XP to XP(unless your using 2K) is simple: Stability.
During the 3 years of this PC's existence under Windows XP, the two times I've had crashs were faulty drivers*flames driver site * and faulty hardware. Compare that to Windows 98, where you were lucky if you got BSODed only once a week, that alone is worth the price.

Well my impression is W2K Workstation is still the most stable Winblows around. Regarding to Win98, my rig is pretty much stable (but frankly my setup is pretty much standard aside of games). The only thing NT-based Winblows is better is in crash recovery; when an app crash in 98, mostly you have to restart the whole OS while in 2000 or XP you can simpy close the crashing app.

A properly configured 2K installation would probebly be more stable, but less usful, esspecially as a gaming platform, 2K wasn't designed for gaming, it was designed as a workstation, and it shows in terms of home use. And NT is far better then the 95x kernel in memory manegement, no more tricks and mirrors, its a real OS.

Second, Ease of Use and configurability, stuff that was hidden in pre-XP, is now aviable to tweak and modify, it also gives more features such as NTFS(Faster in my experiance) and better search.

Wait, I don't get it. I think XP hides more things than previous version of Winblows. The start menu is an example ("my this" and "my that" while hiding the applications), the control panel is another. And of course, it inherents Win2000 shenanigan of hiding file extensions and system files.

All of those can be disabled under 5 seconds, show me a basic setting thats usful(not some obscure change bootup order control) that I cannot config.

Last, game devs apprently like what Windows XP gives them, their having their own programming related reasons to move to XP, if it gives me better games *silent Hunter 3* then I'm for it.

But what games would benefit from such bloated OS? Alright, I can see the benefit of larger memory support, NFTS, and multi processor support (although not many games support the last one), but do they really need to bloat the OS to support multiprocessing or such? Also, I wonder why Win98 cannot support more than 512 Mb; being a 32-bit OS it should be able to do so.

Games benefit from the OTHER improvements in XP, the kernel is far faster, more stable, has more options, and far better memory manegement, I don't have a link offhand, but in many OSes, good memory manegement is more importent then memory size.
Last, the 98x kernal cannot support more then 512MB because of its memory manegement, which frankly, SUCKED.

And don't bring in Office into the discussion its not part of Windows, whatever the bundle sellers may try to say differant.

My point is; we're still doing the same typing and spreadsheeding (aside of games), so what's the point of making a bloated OS? If the OS is not that resource-hungry, those huge RAM and fast CPU can really make us work faster in Excell, for example, instead of being consumed as OS overhead.

The latest improvements in Office(from tryng them out, I don't use Office myself) is in networking, several people on the same file, easier to organize stuff for people or linking to other documents.

On the RAM issue, ya, bloat sucks, but if your gaming(and KAN, you ARE gaming) you want as much RAM as you can, and Windows 98 SUCKED, Sucked MAJOR donkey balls. The first REAL OS Microsoft put out(as in,stable,secure, useable in an office enviorment) was Windows 2K.

Since I'm playing old games, Win98 works fine for me.

Non point.

But more serious question, do we really need bloated OS for games? Of course we need an OS capable of supporting large RAM and multiprocessing and such, but does it need to be as hungry as WinXP?

OS's are bloated not because of games, their bloated because they must on one hand support the widest possible user base, and on the other hand, advance the situation, however, look at Longhorn, its trying to minimize the first part by requiring very high specs(for non gamers), however, its still bloated because you reach parts where you need to devise some algorithim... its supposed to be a new kernel(reletively) but it'll take too long to devise the solution, so you copy paste the old one, and now, you don't know what the old one links too, so you just copy paste the entire part. Thats where the bloat comes from, and it comes from having a large OS that needs to do alot of work, and to be finshed in a serious time frame.

Take for example the Linux kernel, Linus estimated(at around 2003) that to re-build the Linux kernel from scratch would be far faster, and take THIRTEEN YEARS, now you might think a team of engineers would do this faster, but again, you cannot take thirteen years, 10, or even 6 years for a new OS, its just not possible.

Furthermore, do we really need windows approach for gaming OS? Why the likes of Playstation and such requires way less resources than PC?

Because they have one job in life, to load games from media and run them asfast as possible, they don't need to deal with hybrid networks, differant configurations, user acess, UI, anything like that.

In fact, long before Win 3.1, Amiga had been a solid gaming platform that offered multiple colors and wave sound (Amiga MOD module, anyone?) while IBM combatibles were still CGA and PC speakers.

Another discussion,there are a bajillion books explaining WHY it was Windows that conqured the OS market, I lack them.

The PS runs on 2MB, because it runs with a tiny stripped down OS whose only job is to load a CD, you cannot seriously compare a PS to a OS that works on nearly every PC out there

Alright, never mind my above question then. So I guess the problem with Winblows is the design compromise between multi-tasking apps (office and such) and single tasking apps (games). But again, I still don't understand Microsoft "bloatware" philosohpy. Does it really need a resource-hungry OS to support large RAM and multiprocessing and such?

I guess a specialized gaming OS is some kind of forgotten holy grail; I imagine a "resource-lite", single tasked OS like MSDOS, but with better memory support and driver support.

Okey, time for a short re-wording of an Ars article.
There are two kinds of kernels, micro and macro kernels, the micro kernel attempts to do the basics, and leave the rest to apps, this works, only if you have a solid base of those apps, and have the time to develop them.
Then theres the Macro kernel, which includes alot of stuff.
A micro kernel would be... the original Mac OS, very limited, but it has limits, because you require developer(not game developer ;)) support in expanding the OS's power, and instead of having the Kernel itself do the side tasks, its a program, adding another layer of complexity.

A micro kernel works when you have a very clear goal and hardware, and when you have the neccesary software, Windows must work on a massive variety of computers, do a massive number of tasks, such as networking, printing, games, office work, servers, and the Windows team cannot count on 3rd party(I'll count the Office teams and such under 3rd party) knowing how to do something in the most efficient manner.

I mean, look at early Win95 games that support both Win95 and DOS; it always takes less resource to run them in DOS compared to Win95.

Unfortunately gaming development is geared towards Win95 environments these days. DirectX and such. But still, I imagine how those large RAM and CPU would make games run faster with slimmer OS (and games developed for that hypothetical OS, of course).

Yes, DOS ran faster, DOS ran FAR faster and more stable. DOS SUCKED, it was a single tasking enviorment incapable of doing 3D in anything approaching reasonable preformance. Not to mention, people LIKE multi-tasking, while i'm writing this post, I'm chatting with people, reading a SH3 article, playing Sh3 and surfing the net.
You cannot do that with a 'gaming OS'.
If you want a gaming OS, wait for the Phantom, greatest vapourware in the world.

On a side note, it would be interesting to hypothesize what would happen if Win9x never exist on the first place. See, we had 3dfx at that time, as well as DOS GLide games like Jetfighter III and Tomb Raider. Sound cards like AWE64 don't need drivers to make them run; only environment variables. Of course DOS have 640 KB limitations but it had been long gone since the day of DOS4GW.

So gaming development is geared toward single-tasked, resource lite OS that is DOS. 3dfx competitors like nVidia is developing their DOS-based API because Win95 never exist; probably DOS-based MiniGL like GLQuake becomes the common standard for non-GLide players. DOS4GW is more and more refined to support larger memories and such. Sure they wouldn't be PnP support and such, but who need them in games?

What would happen to gaming today? Would games today run better and faster because those huge resources is not consumed by bloated OS?

If 9x hadn't existed(to continue the RAR! I'll discount ANY multi-tasked OS such as mac OS, and Linux), then gaming, and computing would still be stuck in the 80's. Sure, if we had todays gaming, lets imagine OpenGL2.0 is equilivent to DirectX, then we MIGHT have games half the power of today. 9x and more importently, NT, brought more then just multi-tasking, they brought their enviorment, built in support for mouse, multi-threading, POWERFUL API's.
A programmer can either code his own instructions for a graphics command, a time expensive task, or he can call on a pre-designed optimized DirectX function, a one line command. What do you think hes going to pick? nVidia can develop their own API, ATi\3dfx will develop its own API. Then we're back to Betamax VS VHS, only here the consumers don't pick, the developers pick, and the differance in power won't be that great.

I won't argue with you about servers, but there your right, Windows XP is NOT a server PC, its kinda of a home network PC, easier to work with and all, but for servers, you have 2K and 2K3. And if your seriously suggesting to have a Win 98/95 OS as a server, I want some of your crack.

Nope, I would suggest UNIX-based for server. And as long as compatibility allows, I would still choose Win 2000 over Win 2003 for Oracle because the former consumes less system resources.

But of course, I still choose UNIX-based over Win 2000.

Really, I see no point of putting fancy GUI on *servers*, for cying out loud! A PC X-Server and Putty client on my notebook works fine. Who the hell bother doing all the works directly on the server anyway?

Non point, and you are the one with a job in the server market, not to mention I agree.

Servers in the future(commercial enterprise stuff) will become power efficient blade servers running on fast SCSI drives, cold CPU's and a fuckload of RAID, all controlled by a single terminal. Am I right?



Last: FUCK that took me a long time to write.
EDIT: long enough that SH3 mostly dropped out of the RAM