Posted by Jeff on December 10, 2001 at 19:01:58:
In the past, Microsoft has received a lot of flack regarding performance and security issues compared to Unix. And much data is available showing Unix is far more processor and memory efficient than NT 4.0 server. But processors have already hit 2.0 GHz, should IT departments really let this be a big concern?
Many companies have proven it is possible to achieve equal levels of security on both platforms, especially when talking about Windows 2000 Server versus NT 4.0 (note: there is no XP server yet, and I just want to compare Unix to the NT kernal, not Win 9.x, which is obviously not secure).
Finding Unix drivers for devices is one of the biggest negatives in my opinion. Would you really care about a 5% performance gain on your P-4 if you couldn't use your scanner, wireless network card, etc?
Yes, most "flavors" of Unix is free, however many companies have learned the hard way that supporting the "free" unix after installation often times outweighs the cost of contributing to Microsoft's big bank account.
It's obvious that I'm a Microsoft fan, and not a Unix lover. I really don't understand why Unix is approaching the desktop market. That's why I'm interested in other points-of-view.
I can understand where Unix is still a good choice for servers sporting tons of services to a gazillion users.
Any comments? Please, no anti-Microsoft posts.
Post a Followup