Re: [foxboro] Operating System Updates
- From: "Johnson, Alex (Foxboro)" <ajohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: 'Jeremy Milum ' <jmilum@xxxxxxxxx>, "'foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx '" <foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx '" <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:12:04 -0400
No scolding intended, Jeremy. I'm just trying to be sure that what I think
is missing is what others think is missing.
Thanks for the thoughtful input.
AJ
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 8/26/04 9:26 AM
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: //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: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
Other related posts:
