| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Windows 2003 Best OS | |
|
||
| Time: 10:34 EST/15:34 GMT | News Source: InfoWorld | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim | ||
|
Seventeen years of Readers' Choice Awards have brought 17 years of surprises and many close contests -- but none as close as this year's horse race between Microsoft and Apple for Favorite Vendor. In the end, the two giants tied statistically, but Microsoft edged ahead with just three votes. The final tally: Microsoft won 16.2 percent of readers' hearts and Apple had the support of 15.9 percent. Favorite Vendor wasn't the only contest too close to call if the results were rounded to the nearest whole number -- Best Application Server, Best Enterprise Storage Product, and Best Networking Product were also neck and neck until the bitter end. So we decided to publish the ballot results to the tenth of a percent, ensuring that readers' true choices were maintained in the final results. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:33:53 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 8/5/2003 10:56:24 AM |
|
I assume this is for IT professionals and they mean the "Best Operating System" for the server side. In that case, who the heck voted for Mac OS X 10.2? I mean, c'mon...
I also find it hard to believe that VS.NET 2003 didn't win. I can see how Macromedia Studio MX is compelling for various purposes, but they're really not in the same class of product. Apache Jakarta for best App server? lol... that's some BS. Who'd they poll? Also, Jakarta isn't an app server. Jakarta is a name on the Apache site for a group of loosely-associated Java-based products. There's Tomcat, Axis, Struts, and a bunch of other stuff which either has nothing to do with, competes with, or compliments any of the other products. And, c'mon... Axis for best Web Services product? You have to be kididng. Axis completely blows. It doesn't even support a majority of the soap spec yet! Developing web services with Axis is like developing C code with edlin. It's a joke. They didn't even mention IIS/.NET on there which shows this whole thing is completely Unix/Java/Linux biased. .NET is by far the most compelling Web Services platform and completely smokes Java in all avenues. Only WebSphere and WebLogic and hope to compete with .NET on features and speed, and those guys cost like $15,000+ whereas .NET is free. This whole poll thing is a joke. |
| #2 By 14158 (170.12.2.132) at 8/5/2003 1:41:20 PM |
|
I always thought DOS 4.0 was the best OS... This post was edited by Glen on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 at 13:41. |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 8/5/2003 3:02:31 PM |
|
The Readers Choice awards at Infoworld have a tendency of ballot stuffing being used to push certain products.
This has been going on since at least 1996 when OS/2 mysteriously beat out NT 4.0 as best OS when Team OS/2 got involved. |
| #4 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 8/5/2003 3:17:41 PM |
|
The fact that .NET was noticeably absent from the Web Services category is telling.
It's like having a "Best OS" poll with the following choices: - Amiga - OS/2 - Linux - Solaris - AIX - MacOS - Other (that do not end in "indows") |
| #5 By 2960 (156.80.64.105) at 8/5/2003 3:42:01 PM |
|
I set up a system with Server 2003, and I liked it. However, I had to uninstall it and go back to Server 2000.
I had serious performance issues. Not only with the Mac's on the network, but with all the PC's as well. All of the hardware installed was supported. I futzed with it for about a month, and finally had to give up on it for now. File copy performance was horrible, as were initial 'connect' times. I'll try again some time, but not until a few service packs are out. Frankly, Win2K Server works just dandy, and supports AppleTalk to boot. TL |
| #6 By 2960 (156.80.64.105) at 8/5/2003 3:44:13 PM |
|
#3,
Next was pretty damned good! Some places still use it to this day. I know of government mail servers that sat in a corner, with junk and coats and whatever piled on top of them because people forgot the thing was even there. MacOS X is based on Next, so it had a good foundation to begin with. IU |
| #7 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/5/2003 5:36:58 PM |
|
TechLarry, Windows Server 2003 supports AppleTalk. Similar to 2000, you have to add it under Add/Remove Programs > Add/Remove Windows Components > Other Network File and Print Services > File Services for Macintosh.
Out of curiosity, when you tested it, was it on an existing network or a test network? All I've heard is that the file transfer performance is significantly better than 2000. What desktop OSes were you using? What name resolution methods were you using? I remember the horror stories from when 2000 came out about how it would end up on the network "mysteriously" (someone wanted to try it out), take over as the master browser and royally mess up networking, so I'm just wondering what the circumstances were in your case. |
| #8 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 8/5/2003 9:52:10 PM |
|
#7 "Who on Earth thinks MySQL is better than SQL Server???!!!"
The same people that think that Windows Server 2003 is the best OS obviously! They also seem to like the AMD Opteron 64bit CPU quite a bit. |
| #9 By 2960 (156.80.64.105) at 8/6/2003 8:26:24 AM |
|
#14,
Samba is ok for what it is. However, it is not perfect. The file-name issues are madenning, but I think that is Apple's fault, not Samba's. They REALLY need to clean up their act on all the file-name problems out there. My main gripe with Samba is the way it absolutely litters your servers with all those invisible dot-files. I always run with invisibles shown, as do most people I know, and all those dot-files are a pain in the ass. However, due to the resource fork requirements of Mac structured files, I don't know that this is an issue that can really be resolved. TL |
| #10 By 2960 (156.80.64.105) at 8/6/2003 8:36:39 AM |
|
#15,
"TechLarry, Windows Server 2003 supports AppleTalk. Similar to 2000, you have to add it under Add/Remove Programs > Add/Remove Windows Components > Other Network File and Print Services > File Services for Macintosh" No kidding? I didn't even look because I was told they had removed it for SW2003. I'll look again the next time I install it :) As for the Network, I only need one at home so that is where it was installed. There is only one file server running at a time so it was not a conflict with another server. I actually installed it on three different machines and had the same issues with file performance. All computers on the Network are Either Windows XP Pro or MacOS 10.2.x. All machines (except the Mac, of course) have Intel Pro/1000 MT adapters. Yes, I tried locking them down to 100mb/sec. Didn't make a difference. Here is an example for you: All of my CD's are ripped to 160k MP3's and stored on one of the 5 drives in ther File Server. It's around 2000 files. They are run from the file server via iTunes on the Mac and MusicMatch on the PC's. Latest versions, of course. To import the MP3 library into iTunes under Win2K took about 5 minutes. To import the same exact library from the same exact drive under Windows Server 2003 took over an hour. To import the MP3 library into MusicMatch took about 8 minutes under Win2K. The same import under Windows 2003 took over an hour on the PC as well. Plus, when I would click on a song to play it, there would be a 5 second or so delay before the song would play. Under Win2K it was instantaneous. This is, of course, just one example. I'm not saying that there isn't something somewere just plain incompatible with Windows Server 2003. There very well could be. All I know is that the end-product overall was not acceptable and I had to do what I had to do to get my Network back. One day, if I ever have time, I might look into it further. Again, ALL of the hardware in the server was 100% supported. I even went out and bought all these Pro/1000 MT NIC Cards to be sure. Now, if only Gigahertz switches weren't so damned expensive :) At the time, the cheapest switch I could find was a 4-port Netgear and it was over $200! Ridiculous! TL |
| #11 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/6/2003 10:40:02 AM |
|
TL,
AppleTalk is in there for sure... not sure why someone suggested otherwise! http://www.microsoft.com/windows/storage/productinformation/datasheets/storageserver2003.mspx Did you have a chance to try a standard 10/100 NIC in the 2003 box? Also, were you using the Pro/1000 card in 2000, or was this something that you changed as you upgraded to 2003? I don't think the 5 second delay or poor performance is expected behavior with 2003. ;) But I can see why you'd switch back. I also was looking at gigabit switches. Anyone tried out any of the Dell gb switches? The price is nice, but I don't have any experience with their networking gear. |
| #12 By 2960 (156.80.64.105) at 8/6/2003 1:00:41 PM |
|
bluvg,
Well, the problem with trying another NIC is the limited support for NIC's in Windows Server 2003. Take a look at the supported hardware list. If it is the same as it was at release time, NIC card support is amazingly sparse, and was dominated by Intel. Win2K drivers do NOT work reliably under Server 2003. They may install, but you'll end up with all sorts of problems. At the time, and this is astonishing, there was not one single 3COM NIC card supported. Period. Thus the purchase of the Intel Pro/1000 MT's. TL Oh, and since I haven't yelled about it for a while... SYSOPS - WHY IS THE RETENTION OF LOGIN INFORMATION STILL NOT FIXED ??? |
| #13 By 61 (24.92.223.112) at 8/6/2003 3:42:07 PM |
| You have to set it in a policy. |
| #14 By 931 (66.156.3.21) at 8/7/2003 6:32:59 AM |
|
not to mention it sounds like your "test" were using win2003 as a desktop system... which you can ifyou want to.. but you need to configure the tasking mode back to "applications" vs the default which is background services.
"Well, the problem with trying another NIC is the limited support for NIC's in Windows Server 2003. " You must be joking, it's out of the box nic support has yet to let me down and I've installed it on a varied about of desktops and server types without even needing to grab drivers yet. I'm I'm pretty sure some of our older test desktops have 3c5xx 3com embedded nics. And who ever claims MySql is a better database over MS Sql Server or Oracle is smoking the crack pipe big time. Cheaper surely.. better... now that's funny. This post was edited by KnightHawk on Thursday, August 07, 2003 at 06:34. |
| #15 By 2960 (156.80.64.105) at 8/7/2003 8:42:54 AM |
|
#23,
You are wrong. I was running in server mode. As for the NIC's, well, I only go by the HCL. At the time there was not a SINGLE 3COM card on the HCL, and there wasn't a single Windows Server 2003 Driver on 3COM's site. Take that for what you will :) TL |
| #16 By 2960 (156.80.64.105) at 8/7/2003 8:43:28 AM |
|
#22,
What, exactly, are you responding to ? TL |
| #17 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/7/2003 11:03:10 AM |
|
TL, I can't speak for the HCL, but I know for sure that I have a W2k3 server with a 3Com 3C920 NIC in it right now, and it's running smoothly. The drivers came from the CD, signed by Microsoft Windows Publisher.
What type of name resolution were you using, incidently? Were you using DNS? Did you have SAMBA set up on the Mac? I know you can force SAMBA to make itself the master browser; I'm wondering if there was some issue there with it timing out and resorting to another name resolution method. |
| #18 By 61 (24.92.223.112) at 8/7/2003 3:17:08 PM |
|
TL:
Retention of login info (I'm assuming you mean in the login screen after you log in and then back out, it keeps the user name). |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:33:53 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
