🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <31400FCC.58A3@mts.se>, Martin Nisshagen <martin@mts.se> wrote:

> Nope. Dan posted some uptime numbers for multiuser Solaris servers to show
> people that Unix most often is a very stable OS capable of handling
> multiple users at a long time whithout a single crash.
> 
> You replied to Dan's posting by telling a story of a Mac being used for
> serving some files to a local mac network. 
> 
> I replied by saying that I don't think that's a good comparison.
> 
> Like it or not, that's still my opinion.
>  
> I agree that it's something, but it's still not the same thing as running
> multiple users on a Solaris machine.

This thread keeps getting sillier.

Would you please tell us where Apple _ever_ promoted MacOS as competition
for UNIX? The answer, of course, is that they didn't.

Apple has offered UNIX solutions for quite a few years for people who need
the maximum in performance. MacOS, OTOH was designed for:
a. Single desktop users
b. File servers and low-end workgroup servers. Here, the ease of use more
than makes up for the slight performance degradation.

Maybe the fact that Apple's most expensive workgroup server was a tiny
fraction of the Solaris machines you keep quoting would tip you off.

BTW, would you like to compare Mac Workgroup servers against a Win3.1 or
even a Win95 server? That makes as much sense as comparing MacOS workgroup
servers against UNIX.

-- 
Regards,       Joe Ragosta

Copyright Joseph M. Ragosta, 1996. Non-exclusive, royalty free license to distribute this post granted to any service provider except Microsoft. By posting this, Microsoft agrees to pay $1,000 per posting.