Re: [foxboro] Operating System Updates

I have SUN boxes running 24/7 the oldest has been in uninterupted service
since 1990 the newer ones since 1998 
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Milum [mailto:jmilum@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 8:26 AM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] Operating System Updates

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:08:45 -0400, Johnson, Alex (Foxboro)
<ajohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Would you please elaborate on
> 1) Solaris is more functional

I feel like I've just been scolded by the headmaster.... but let me try and
substantiate my claims:

1. XP stations do not provide remote displays 2. I/A on Windows restricts
ICC access to CPs hosted by the local machine. (Sascha) 3. XP stations do
not provide development header files (I believe you said this was on
purpose) 4. XP stations do not provide the remote service that Unix has by
default: telnet, ftp, rcp, etc...
5. Mixed platform nodes are not fully integrated (graphics need to be
converted)

There are others deficiencies as noted previously in other threads. 
Many of these
functions can be added to the Windows stations by installing 3rd party
utilities but that leads to the next question....

> 2) Solaris is more stable than XP.

Ok, here I must confess that I have not personally used any of the new XP
stations but I have used the NT ones in the past.  As an operator
workstation, they seem to be pretty good (the install procedure is more of a
pain than the Solaris boxes though).
The problem comes when installing 3rd party utilities to regain some of the
functionality of the Unix stations.  The more apps added to windows
stations, the more stability problems that seem to occur: lockups, blue
screens, resource problems, etc.  
I remember a presentation given by someone (I forget who) from Foxboro at
the last User's Group meeting in Orlando.  They had a slide showing the Mean
Time between Failures for Windows NT vs. Windows 2000.  NT had something
like 20 days and 2K was much better.  Now you are asking what does this have
to do with XP, well not much, but I remember before the new stations we
released, Foxboro was touting that the NT stations were just as stable as
the Solaris based ones. 
An MTBF of 20
days (Foxboro numbers) does not (to me at least) seem as stable as the Sun
boxes.
So now the new XP boxes are said to be as stable as the Sun ones: this seems
to be a contradiction. I have Solaris WP's that have been running for over a
year, could I really expect the same from a Windows box???  I admit that I
have some bias when it comes to the Windows stations, but it is a bias that
comes from experience.  I would gladly embrace Windows stations that give me
all the functionality and stability as the Sun boxes, but I have not seen
this yet.  Has anyone?
 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at your
own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
 
foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe:         mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe:      mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
 


 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
 
foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe:         mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe:      mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave

Other related posts: