Window NT vs x86 solaris vs SCO?

Window NT vs x86 solaris vs SCO?

Post by RHS Linux Us » Sat, 28 Jun 1997 04:00:00



: More and more sites are deploying Win NT. Besides easy integration with
: Windows desktop, low cost is often cited as one major reason of choosing
: NT instead of UNIX. What about UNIX on x86 platforms, why aren't they
: chosen? I suppose that they shouldn't be much expensive than NT. It
: doesn't seem that x86 solaris has gained enough market share, any
: reason for this? Thanks.

I am a UNIX person.  I honestly belive that UNIX is a better OS then NT.  Now
I am not sayng that NT is a bad OS.  It really depends on what the situation
is.  This is up to the person who has to install manage and maintain the
system.

The one thing I do not like is the monopoly that Microsoft has. My employers
want me to switch over to NT because everytime they turn on the TV they see
commercials for Microsoft.  They do not have to maintain, install, or manage
the network, they want to be able to say that they use the State of The ART
program from microsoft.

Now for the question, which OS is better?  I do not know.  I have my opinions
just like everyone else, but when it comes right down to the best OS is the
one that lets you accomplish the goal set by your employer.  Be that some
flavor of UNIX or NT.

John

John Alcock
Enhanced Solutions Computing

 
 
 

Window NT vs x86 solaris vs SCO?

Post by William Allen Schee » Sat, 28 Jun 1997 04:00:00


While UNIX can often offer better performance on similar platforms, NT is
generally perceived by most business types as more 'mainstream' and
'leading edge'. As long as the 'job' gets done, this is a moot point `
choose the applications needed and choose the OS that best supports them.
Apart from MS marketing efforts, there is greater comfort in the business
community in selecting a well known product from a well known company (well
known to the average CEO or business owner, that is ~ just try asking a few
CEOs if they've heard of SCO) The minute you start talking about different
'flavors' of UNIX, the eyes usually glaze over the choice for NT is made.
NT may not always be the best technical solution, but its a business - not
technical - decision.
--
William Allen Scheer
CompuCom Systems Engineer
MCSE, PSE, 3Com 3Wizard




> : More and more sites are deploying Win NT. Besides easy integration with
> : Windows desktop, low cost is often cited as one major reason of
choosing
> : NT instead of UNIX. What about UNIX on x86 platforms, why aren't they
> : chosen? I suppose that they shouldn't be much expensive than NT. It
> : doesn't seem that x86 solaris has gained enough market share, any
> : reason for this? Thanks.

> I am a UNIX person.  I honestly belive that UNIX is a better OS then NT.
Now
> I am not sayng that NT is a bad OS.  It really depends on what the
situation
> is.  This is up to the person who has to install manage and maintain the
> system.

> The one thing I do not like is the monopoly that Microsoft has. My
employers
> want me to switch over to NT because everytime they turn on the TV they
see
> commercials for Microsoft.  They do not have to maintain, install, or
manage
> the network, they want to be able to say that they use the State of The
ART
> program from microsoft.

> Now for the question, which OS is better?  I do not know.  I have my
opinions
> just like everyone else, but when it comes right down to the best OS is
the
> one that lets you accomplish the goal set by your employer.  Be that some
> flavor of UNIX or NT.

> John

> John Alcock
> Enhanced Solutions Computing



 
 
 

Window NT vs x86 solaris vs SCO?

Post by John Kotche » Sat, 28 Jun 1997 04:00:00



> While UNIX can often offer better performance on similar platforms, NT
> is  generally perceived by most business types as more 'mainstream'
> and 'leading edge'.

?????.... Excuse me here, but Unix systems have been "mainstream" for
at least 7 years.....  How long has NT been "mainstream"?

At this point in time most "business types" have in fact heard
of "Unix".  In fact most higher up "business types" have worked
on unix systems by now.

Quote:> As long as the 'job' gets done, this is a moot
> point ` choose the applications needed and choose the OS that best
> supports them. Apart from MS marketing efforts, there is greater
> comfort in the business community in selecting a well known product
> from a well known company (well known to the average CEO or business
> owner, that is ~ just try asking a few CEOs if they've heard of SCO)

This is the old "Nobody ever got fired for choosing [substitute large
monopolistic market share company name here]" argument.

I feel it's also part of why Sun has taken to some traditional marketing
methods ... read TV Ads.  The point is to get name recognition out there
for their company to the business people [non-technical].  So that when
someone mentions the "I" word [Internet] the connection is made to Sun.

Quote:> The minute you start talking about different 'flavors' of UNIX, the
> eyes usually glaze over the choice for NT is made. NT may not always
> be the best technical solution, but its a business - not technical -
> decision.

If the best technical solution is not selected then a disservice is
being done to the company by IT. It's our jobs as IT professionals
to pick the most appropriate solution to a given task.

Quote:> --
> William Allen Scheer
> CompuCom Systems Engineer
> MCSE, PSE, 3Com 3Wizard

<<<<< Other posts have been deleted >>>>>>
--
       ___________________________________
      / John Kotches is *netically:  /\


   /                                  / /
  /  Technology: no place for wimps! / /
  \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/
 
 
 

Window NT vs x86 solaris vs SCO?

Post by Andrew Gabri » Sun, 29 Jun 1997 04:00:00



> More and more sites are deploying Win NT. Besides easy integration with
> Windows desktop, low cost is often cited as one major reason of choosing
> NT instead of UNIX. What about UNIX on x86 platforms, why aren't they
> chosen? I suppose that they shouldn't be much expensive than NT. It
> doesn't seem that x86 solaris has gained enough market share, any
> reason for this? Thanks.

[original article hasn't made it here - above taken from a followup]

I work for a developer who ships products on ~20 unixs and NT (and
other OS's too).

NT does account for more and more, but many customers - usually
the larger and more experienced ones - won't touch it. Those who
switch are generally those running old SCO unix (e.g. SCO 3.2v4.x),
who tend to have less experienced unix staff, and poor performance
as a consequence. It is usually assumed that anyone who is competant
with an MS-Windows desktop will be able to run an NT server, but
I havn't seen a customer get far enough down this path to say how
true this assumption is. Competant unix sysadmins are regarded as
expensive, and competant NT sysadmins are regarded as not required.

There is a _big_ misunderstanding throughout the computing world
that NT means a cheap PC, and Unix means a large expensive server.
Unix will run on everything from _much_ smaller/cheaper PCs than NT,
through to the largest machines in the world. NT is rather more
limited to PCs only (other NT sales don't account for anything
much yet, and most of the non-PC platforms have been dropped).
However, this misunderstanding, particlarly at IT manager level,
fuels the "PC's are so cheap, we'll have to run NT" argument.
It's really up to the likes of SCO and SunSoft to convince IT
managers differently, but I havn't seen either trying very hard.
As to initial cost, the PC hardware is same, and the Unix OS is
usually cheaper than NT (licensing often means you don't need a
unix server edition where you do for NT). However, the initial
cost of any PC system is nothing compared to running costs
(verses the initial costs of a non-PC system which can be a
significant consideration).

I spend a lot of my time measuring performance of applications
running on various operating systems, and identifying bottlenecks.
I have recently done a comparision of SCO 3.2v5.x and NT4. If you
can keep out of the kernels, the performance of the two is
pretty much identical (NT wins slightly, probably due to better
compilers). The snag is, of course, that you can't keep out of
the kernels - scheduling, filesystem access, and [NT] display all
heavily use the kernel. With no display [to make things fair to
NT], the NT kernel uses around 4 times the CPU as the SCO kernel
performing the same scheduling and filing activities. Also, the NT
filing activities are in some respects very much slower than SCO
(NTFS verses EAFS). (I have observed that NT/FAT access is faster
than NT/NTFS, but almost no one running an NT server uses FAT
filesystems.) This means that you need a machine of around 3 times
the power to transfer this application from SCO to NT, without
losing performance. OTOH, anyone upgrading from an aging SCO
system to a new NT system would probably be hard pressed to find a
PC system whose CPU wasn't at least 3 times faster anyway.

In the past, I have compared SCO 3.2v5 and Solaris x86. Solaris
wins over SCO, but not by such a large margin as SCO wins over NT.

Of course, this is one particular application - the performance
ratios for other applications will be different depending on their
usage profile of system calls. This application makes less use of
system calls than is typically quoted as the norm.

Your milage _will_ vary...

--

Consultant Software Engineer

 
 
 

Window NT vs x86 solaris vs SCO?

Post by Burt Hil » Fri, 04 Jul 1997 04:00:00


Quote:

> If the best technical solution is not selected then a disservice is
> being done to the company by IT. It's our jobs as IT professionals
> to pick the most appropriate solution to a given task.

.
The first statement is true, if it references IT as an internal
function.  External IT generally can influence but not effect a final
selection. The second statement is true ... pick ... which would be a
function of either internal or external IT ... but it stops there. The
final selection will be made at 'higher levels'. Front end cost usually
wins. Damn shame, isn't it? On the other hand, without 'low front end',
there simply wouldn't BE any MicroSoft ... or Sun ... or Solaris.

In fact, the choices would probably still be IBM MVS or AT&T Unix
Version VII ... not SystemVReleaseWhatever ... but Version VII.

 
 
 

Window NT vs x86 solaris vs SCO?

Post by Burt Hil » Fri, 04 Jul 1997 04:00:00


... sorry ... I forgot Amdahl and Cray ... not to mention Honeywell. :D

 
 
 

Window NT vs x86 solaris vs SCO?

Post by William Allen Schee » Mon, 07 Jul 1997 04:00:00


--
William Allen Scheer
CompuCom Systems Engineer
MCSE, PSE, 3Com 3Wizard



Quote:> ?????.... Excuse me here, but Unix systems have been "mainstream" for
> at least 7 years.....  How long has NT been "mainstream"?

I believe we have very different perceptions of 'mainstream'. How long
something has been mainstream is irrelevant.

Quote:> At this point in time most "business types" have in fact heard
> of "Unix".  In fact most higher up "business types" have worked
> on unix systems by now.

Beg to differ - your comments are likely accurate for fairly large
organizations with a long IT history. Such organizations make up only the
barest fraction of the market. Not my numbers, mind you - check with
Gartner, IDG, et al

Quote:> This is the old "Nobody ever got fired for choosing [substitute large
> monopolistic market share company name here]" argument.

I make no such assertion - only that names like Microsoft and IBM are
household words, while 'UNIX' and 'SCO' are not. Whether or not decision
makers are accurate in the assumptions they make is far beyond what I was
stating.
Quote:

> I feel it's also part of why Sun has taken to some traditional marketing
> methods ... read TV Ads.  The point is to get name recognition out there
> for their company to the business people [non-technical].  So that when
> someone mentions the "I" word [Internet] the connection is made to Sun.

And this is a brilliant move on Sun's part. They are going to have to drop
the 'attitude' and actually operate like a business for a change.

Quote:

> If the best technical solution is not selected then a disservice is
> being done to the company by IT. It's our jobs as IT professionals
> to pick the most appropriate solution to a given task.

'Best Technical' and 'appropriate' solutions are not always the same thing.

In short I believe you represent the ' we are the gods - do it our way '
school. The idea that an NOS other than UNIX may be a good solution
sometimes seems to frighten you. I don't have time for such trivia, I'm too
busy LISTENING to my customers,  and addressing their needs with NT,
NetWare, Banyan Vines, SCO, HP-UX, AIX, Solaris and whatever else meets
their requirements (and not my ego) best.

--
William Allen Scheer
CompuCom Systems Engineer
MCSE, PSE, 3Com 3Wizard

 
 
 

1. File Server for Windows clients (was: Window NT vs x86 solaris vs SCO?)

The point is well taken that it is more difficult to shoe-horn myriad Windows
clients into the UNIX server's "preferred" file serving protocol--that can be
an administrative nightmare.

Fortunately, as has been pointed out here, that is not necessary.  You can
still have the very best transaction and Internet server (UNIX) and easily
serve files and printing to your Windows/DOS clients.

Note that SCO VisionFS not only available for just SCO OpenServer/UnixWare
or Intel-based systems, but for SPARC Solaris and HP-UX as well.  Ports
for SPARC SunOS, AIX and other UNIXen should be out by year end.

VisionFS also works with other Vision Family products, such as SuperVision,
to help remotely manage all those pesky PCs. ;^)

There is also SCO Advanced File and Print Server for OpenServer Release 5
(Host or Enterprise) systems, which is the actual NT code ported to UNIX.
SCO Advanced File and Print Server comes with NetBEUI, which gives you the
networking you need to tie Windows/DOS desktops to OpenServer.  For those
smaller accounts, a 5-user AFPS + 5-user Host is $1690 U.S. (list prices).

Why SCO VisionFS instead of samba?  Well, it's a fully supported commercial
product with documentation and integrated administration utilities.  And SCO
has done some optimization work to increase performance (and presumably will
continue to do so).

Besides, now that SCO OpenServer (and soon, SCO UnixWare) are *free* for
non-commercial home, educational and evaluation purposes there's no excuse
for not checking out the also free 1-user AFPS "Lite" or the VisionFS demo.

%^)

Regards,

Tim

--
Her sun is gone down while it was yet day.

                                                         --Jeremiah 15:9

2. How to make a useful backup of the /boot partition?

3. Vision FS (was: Window NT vs x86 solaris vs SCO?)

4. Why won't fstab mount /cdrom as exec

5. Window NT vs x86 solaris vs SCO?

6. Need help with SZ.

7. Mini Disk to PC

8. Evaluation pointers: x86-Solaris vs x86-NT vs SPARC-Solaris

9. Linux vs OS2 vs NT vs Win95 vs Multics vs PDP11 vs BSD geeks

10. Benchmarks x86 Solaris vs Linux and Solaris 2.6 x86 vs sparc