AtW gets pwned

[AtW]

Of course if you actually did want to run a grown-up O/S you'd be using one of the *NIX variants, but then your puny .Net application couldn't work I suppose?

We've got distributed crawler writtein in .NET working on Linux/Mac/FreeBSD

HTH

[Sysman]

The real pros are now using Linux and/or OS X

Fixed that for you

[Churchill]

Fixed that for you

OS X == GBOS

[sasguru]

He got pwned here as well:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...n-ritchie.html

[snaw]

AtW got pwned, and still he refuses to accept it.

How many times has this muppet been shown up for talking bollocks about topics he clearly knows nada about?

[Cliphead]

Well, since everyone seems to have mistaken my good will for "being pwned":




Ok, TykeMerc, you are not a pro. A pro would skip bad/carp OS iterations, such as (but not limited to) MS DOS 4.0, any Windows before 2.0, Windows ME, Vista.

Windows 7 is apparently better than Vista, however peformance wise it is not substantially better than Windows XP - it may boot faster apparently, not much in my install if at all, in any case I don't spend my time booting it all the time, rather working in it.

http://www.overclockers.com/index.ph...re&Itemid=4264

CBA to look for more links - I vote with my money: we stay on Windows XP Pro 64-bit, all this shiny Aero tulip is for amateurs who think they become pros by installing latest OS.



HTH

I started my career in IT using all the DOS / Win iterations as well as CPM & UNIX. If I remember rightly I had no choice in the OS's I had to work with, whatever contract I was on at the time determined that. In other words I went where the money was. Does this make me an amateur?

At home (where I work), I mostly use Linux but have XP, Win2000, 2003 & OSX, think there's still a SUN box around as well. I'm not going to get into an argument about pro / am differences, as I said before I use what I'm paid to use.

[AtW]

I use what I'm paid to use.

[snaw]

Backtracking big time.

[AtW]

Backtracking big time.

[AtW]

The real pros are still on Windows 2000. You loser.

64-bit support in Windows 2000 was not good enough for production use, Win XP Pro 64-bit on the other hand (which is Windows 2003 server 64-bit without the name and some unnecessary elements) is perfect: we run it on all our SKA servers that have 48 GB of RAM. This means we don't have to pay ridiculous prices for "Server" build of the OS - in this case "Enterprise Editions" would be necessary, they'd cost I think £1500 per server, we don't have to pay that, as the result it saves a lot of dosh.

HTH