| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 30608 | 2003-02-25 05:52:00 | What is the Best OS for small Business | ooh yeh (2935) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 123810 | 2003-02-25 23:08:00 | If you're a small business, I'd recommend staying with MS operating systems - probably Win 2000 as it's "mature". While the initial startup cost of a Linux system (or server) is small, ongoing TCO may be higher due to the unfamiliarity of most people with Linux and the learning curve required. |
antmannz (28) | ||
| 123811 | 2003-02-25 23:33:00 | >unfamiliarity of most people with Linux and the learning curve required. The same thing can be said of moving from Novell to Windows. If you have an Admin who can make Novell dance but has to go through a major learning curve going to Windows this may well attract extra training costs. Some Novell skills can be transposed easily but there are differences. It all comes down to what you are achieving at the moment, what your future direction for the company is and the skill sets within your organisation (or your willingness to pay consultants). Then the ultimate question - Budget. |
Heather P (163) | ||
| 123812 | 2003-02-25 23:58:00 | >>ongoing TCO may be higher TCO = Total Cost of Ownership (if you didn't already know). The jury is still out on which is higher (it may vary from company to company too). |
Dolby Digital (160) | ||
| 123813 | 2003-02-27 00:44:00 | I would be interested to help you (I am over the hill). If you feel inclined email me; peldridgeATclearDOTnetDOTnz (change caps to special character). | Dolby Digital (160) | ||
| 123814 | 2003-03-01 06:28:00 | ".....probably Win 2000 as it's "mature"." Is it? Linux is basically a clone of UNIX which started out about 1969 - 70. Linux began in 1990 or so. Windows began to get serious with Win3.11 and NT3.1 in about 1993. |
JohnD (509) | ||
| 123815 | 2003-03-01 06:55:00 | Win2K - You'd hope its mature, as MS are testing their latest SP - Win2K_SP4!!!! Linux - Its different from doze, but that's coz its a replacement andnot a clone.. I guess :-) Both would take a bit of getting used to for a n00b to computers, Windows progs are quite readily available, whereas Linux has a lot buudled with the OS, or free online, and WineX (Which works mint with the right nVidia Driver) is awesome! |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 123816 | 2003-03-02 01:37:00 | Bingo | Merlin (503) | ||
| 123817 | 2003-03-02 06:53:00 | >>Redhat 8 has come a long way since redhat 7.3 Chilling_Silence: My RedHat 7.3 has kernel 2.4.18-3 and I think RH8.0 has something like kernel 2.4.18-14 (which is only a minor version change from 7.3). So if the kernel is the core of the OS then there can't be massive changes between 7.3 and 8.0. I would suggest there is a dollop of advertising hype and some cosmetic GUI changes. Some real changes will happen with the upcoming 2.6 kernel. |
JohnD (509) | ||
| 123818 | 2003-03-02 07:20:00 | Ah, that may be so. However, the Installer is the nicest thing to look at ever! KDE is the newer version from what Im told, mainly though, apparently, most things are just the 'most recent versions'. Still, when I tried redhat7 I didnt have as much luck. Perhaps that was coz I didnt know quite as much about it, but why would redhat bother releasing a new Distro, if all it was is the latest proggy versions. Suer, that is part of it though. What are these 'real changes' that come with the 2.6 kernel? BTW - I thought Linux was started in '91, and what about MS-DOS? |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 123819 | 2003-03-02 08:11:00 | Have a look at www.axian.com for kernel developments for 2.6 - they include new hardware drivers (e.g. USB2, bluefish), 64bit support, new NTFS driver, etc ...... Sure DOS began in about 1981 or so and Linux in 1991 - but Linux is really UNIX (1969 beginnings) and MS didn't start a serious OS until NT3.1 in 1993 (and then it had a likeness to OS/2). Anyway this is a silly argument!! |
JohnD (509) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||