Windows usually slower but more stable than Linux hosting. [Archive]

jdi_knght

03-15-2006, 02:43 AM

I don't think that Windows hosting is more stable than Linux hosting at all. A good setup might be just as stable, but more?

That being said, since it's obviously much cheaper to run a Linux server than it is a Windows one, I would guess that the hosts who offer Windows based hosting are usually larger companies who have probably also been smart enough to dump money into a good administrator who can make sure the servers are stable. Since they're paying for the Microsoft licenses, they've probably plunked down money for real servers. On the other hand, a kid who starts up his own web hosting business is probably running Linux and probably not as experienced, and is more prone to run a server that is less than stable, quite possibly on less than ideal hardware.

CR-

03-15-2006, 04:50 AM

No, to the OP.

KGIII

03-15-2006, 05:00 AM

No, to the OP.

Can you provide any non-biased links to support that?

KGIII

Yash-JH

03-15-2006, 05:04 AM

WIndows does have it's place and is a decent hostng platform but for long term rock solid stablity I think Linux has it hands down. Windows has more memory leaks, application pool isolation problems that cross over and crash the IIS etc.

I beg to differ.
Windows has improved considerably as a server platform from the early days of NT. Win2003 is quite rock solid. It rarely needs a reboot (only some critical patches may require it), it has good memory and resource management as well.

Memory leaks? The OS reallly has no memory leak issues. Infact, the kernel design of 2003 has also improved considerably to prevent crashes resulting from buffer overuns caused by badly designed software.. I suggest you do some reading on the design improvemens of Server 2003.

Where Windows 2003 beats Linux is in the ability to isolate and manage websites using IIS6. Application pools is a really great feature in IIS6 that allows you to divide sites into various pools, which run using independent IIS processes, where you can control memory and CPU usage, and configure them to recycle as well. Application pools does really improve the tools a Windows admin has when trying to isolate/monitor bad code. And in the world of shared hosting, bad code is the #1 problem that causes downtime

IIS crashing? Honestly, I've seen httpd crash more than IIS6 does

Whats driving the popularity of Windows hosting is ASP.NET and SQL Server.

CR-

03-15-2006, 05:49 AM

Can you provide any non-biased links to support that?

KGIII

Links? No. Just my own personal experience.

Rorax

03-15-2006, 06:08 AM

I beg to differ.
Windows has improved considerably as a server platform from the early days of NT. Win2003 is quite rock solid. It rarely needs a reboot (only some critical patches may require it), it has good memory and resource management as well.

Memory leaks? The OS reallly has no memory leak issues. Infact, the kernel design of 2003 has also improved considerably to prevent crashes resulting from buffer overuns caused by badly designed software.. I suggest you do some reading on the design improvemens of Server 2003.

Where Windows 2003 beats Linux is in the ability to isolate and manage websites using IIS6. Application pools is a really great feature in IIS6 that allows you to divide sites into various pools, which run using independent IIS processes, where you can control memory and CPU usage, and configure them to recycle as well. Application pools does really improve the tools a Windows admin has when trying to isolate/monitor bad code. And in the world of shared hosting, bad code is the #1 problem that causes downtime

IIS crashing? Honestly, I've seen httpd crash more than IIS6 does

Whats driving the popularity of Windows hosting is ASP.NET and SQL Server.

Interesting opinion, i somehow tend to agree with you that MS improved their stability in their latest OP(Server 2003), it is truly a good product.

Anyhow, i am not sure which one is -more- stable, but i think most SysAdmins would agree that MS products are much more easier to administrate.

KGIII

03-15-2006, 06:23 AM

CR-:

Really, don't think I (of all the people) am trying to bug you specifically? But, well, tag and you're it. Keep in mind, also, that I'm certified in several MS certs and an MVP and STILL only host on *NIX systems so while I may agree with you choice I can't prove the reasons either?

Truth be told - based on experiences - you can hammer the SNOT out of an XP sytem when it is run as a server or, even better, 2k3... I mean beat the ever living crap out of them. Dump one on a LAN, add a database without even using SQL Server 2k5, and then hammer on it. (Don't use Access or, well, hah! You'll see...)

Pump in 1500 connections per second. It eats it and RUNS. Yeah - 'tis amazing.

Toss, instead, the rest of the stack on it. Instead of LAMP run WAMP and oh my... With a decent amount of RAM and MUCH more easily accessible software for security (really on that one - get me a decent firewall with a GUI that's software based and tie it in with the services like MS apps for Linux) you'll have a grand old time. It can, and will, run like a champ.

Except, well, I suck at such things. My remote administration is limited to either VNC builds, RA, and VPC. So I'm a Linux hoster - it's simpler for me...

I guess, and please don't take this the wrong way as it's ENTIRELY personal views/opinions and I agree with you, I'd get more use/simplicity if you said, with your post, it was your opinion as opposed to factual. The OP did say "will you agree" so I'll let you off easy this time and, just in case you're wondering, I STILL host on only with *NIX so I do agree but can't prove it. :| Yet I don't think that Windows is any slower nor less stable under the same set of rules. I too haven't any links to prove this?

Really... I can tack a system up and let it run forever here - even a 9x system - and have nary an issue. If you want to remain insecure don't even update and reboot. (Same is true for kernel builds in *NIX though.)

In other words - I agree... Windows or Linux is an acceptable solution for hosting. The OPs question was if Windows was slower but more stable and, frankly, kind of out to lunch or at least strange... If you can ever find a non-biased review then lemme know?

Ah well, either study is sponsored by SOMEONE interested in the outcome I guess...

KGIII

(Stephen)

03-15-2006, 11:33 AM

Rorax,

One thing that Yash means is that IIS6 is very stable, we can regularly go 30+ days without restarting IIS on the servers, that is 30+ days not even restarting the SERVICE of iis, that is pretty stable in most regards. This is all in a pretty busy shared enviroment, I would say in a smaller dedicated enviroment with proper setup, IIS would go 100+ days without restarting, but then you would have to restart to apply a patch before then, so it is fruitless to try :D

CR-

03-15-2006, 04:38 PM

KGIII

03-15-2006, 05:58 PM

I definitely wouldn't say it's more stable. I do think that, with proper administration, it's capable of being as stable as a *NIX based system. I wouldn't even say it's slower. Disable various services and tweak the system - much as one would want to ensure a properly configured *NIX system.

I guess they all have their place and the SQL Server 2005 looks really nice. I'm curious as to see where that takes us down the road.

KGIII

bitfuzzy

03-16-2006, 12:43 AM

nope, can't agree.

Linux over Windows anyday

jt2377

03-16-2006, 09:16 AM

hello, David Wang - developer on IIS have an interesting blog on Apache vs IIS. notice he doesn't said Windows is better or anything but some myth about the new Windows 2003/IIS6 should be dispelled because people still use IIS5 as arugment that Windows is weaker but as you can see IIS6 have a big huge upgrade on secuirty and perforamce and the upcoming IIS7 should be more fleixable.

http://blogs.msdn.com/david.wang/archive/2006/03/08/Thoughts_on_IIS_Security_vs_Apache_Part_3.aspx#comments

anyway, i see that some people still use IIS5 as an execuse to slam Windows/IIS. check out the Windows2003/IIS6, it is on par with Apache/*nix.

it also depend on the cost, the cost of *nix may be free but consider this, if you have no in house tech to take care *nix and all your tech are good with Windows. why do you want *nix? it take time to learn *nix, unless you want to spend money to outsource server managment then it's best to stick with what you know.

my two cents

jt2377

03-16-2006, 09:19 AM

I beg to differ.
Windows has improved considerably as a server platform from the early days of NT. Win2003 is quite rock solid. It rarely needs a reboot (only some critical patches may require it), it has good memory and resource management as well.

Memory leaks? The OS reallly has no memory leak issues. Infact, the kernel design of 2003 has also improved considerably to prevent crashes resulting from buffer overuns caused by badly designed software.. I suggest you do some reading on the design improvemens of Server 2003.

Where Windows 2003 beats Linux is in the ability to isolate and manage websites using IIS6. Application pools is a really great feature in IIS6 that allows you to divide sites into various pools, which run using independent IIS processes, where you can control memory and CPU usage, and configure them to recycle as well. Application pools does really improve the tools a Windows admin has when trying to isolate/monitor bad code. And in the world of shared hosting, bad code is the #1 problem that causes downtime

IIS crashing? Honestly, I've seen httpd crash more than IIS6 does

Whats driving the popularity of Windows hosting is ASP.NET and SQL Server.

well said. people still use the old arugment to dismiss MS Windows2003/IIS6. by the same token, Apache2 have more hole than IIS6.

FHDave

03-16-2006, 09:35 AM

I learn a pattern, at least here at WHT, that those who think Windows is inferior than Linux has rarely had a first hand experience with Windows, if not lately, then ever. Such comments, I believe, should be dismissed.

We run quite a few windows servers ourlseves (both ours and client's) and have had very few if nonexistent issues with them. It works right out of the box.

Mark@Helm

03-17-2006, 07:52 AM

It's certainly true that, at this point, Linux/Apache has been a more popular choice for the majority of hosting servers. According to NetCraft Apache accounts for about 70% ish of sites with Windows used for about 20% of them.

Microsoft have come into the game late and have had a lot off issues to deal with including the fact that they're competing with a product that's free to use.

Personally, from my own experience and research, Windows is the better platform for hosting long term and we're seeing huge improvements in all areas including performance, stability and the availablity of feature/applications. Things have changed a lot in the last 12 months or so and I think it's going to continue to head that way long term. That 20% figure is going up!

Yash-JH

03-17-2006, 08:12 AM

bitfuzzy

03-17-2006, 10:14 AM

I'll take that bet

drakazz

03-17-2006, 12:21 PM

Well, I hate to say this on a forum that is very pro linux.

But I am willing to bet alot of money that in 5 to 6 years from now, Windows is going to be a more popular choice for hosting than Linux..

The biggest thing backing Windows is ironically, its universability. It can host everything, PHP, Perl, .NET, ColdFusion, etc... Linux can't.

For those of you who aren't familiar with .NET.. Imagine being able to write your web application in C++, Visual Basic and other languages.. and then compiling everything together to host it as a single web application, with any windows host. That is what .NET allows you to do..Very interesting...
GNU/Linux systems are weaker because you've got to update software all the time. Updating adds different holes to the system, you need to reconfigure. And even Linux pros wouldn't be very used to the new configurations for example.
Did you mean .NET C++ ?
.NET is a very useful thing as it allows you to program the same thing in a lot of different programming languages. Also, ASP.NET is much more secure than PHP for example. As i looked in posts about IIS6 vs Apache2 - I had a better experience with Apache2 than IIS 5 although seems that IIS beats apache in the managing and stability. The workstation wouldn't slow downwhen getting bombarded by requests (Yes, Worms...). It does that a lot when using Apache2. Simply, the connection doesn't work - i cannot find where the hole is but the thing is that simply you get a very very big downtime. I prefer using Windows+IIS Hosting rather than *+Apache hosting simply because it's more stable. I currently am using GNU/Linux + lighttpd, seems to run very nicely although because of these big problems - open source unstable servers Vs. closed source paid servers - willing to start my OS soon :] ASM coming... ;]

Yash-JH

03-17-2006, 12:39 PM

Did you mean .NET C++ ?

C# (pronouced as C Sharp) which is Microsoft's next version of C++.. C# introduces alot of Java type OOP concepts, but anyone who has programmed in C/C++ will find C# easy..

If you are developing in a team, and writing a large web application, some of your developers could write the underlying code for the web application in C# and compile them as DLLs, which another team developing the interface in Visual Basic could utilise... In Visual Basic, you can actually VISUALLY design your websites/applications and write event-driven code for your website.

.NET supports more languages, although C++ and VB are what I generally work with.. PHP doesn't come close in the sort of reusability and scalability that can be achieved with .NET. PHP doesn't come close to the sort of OOP concepts you can apply in .NET. PHP is a scripting language, .NET is a compilable, debuggable web application

Not to turn this into a .NET vs PHP debate.. But IMHO, .NET is gaining popularity for a reason and that combined with lowering SQL Server costs is going to drive the demand for Windows hosting... In the future, I see more people opting to host PHP driven sites on Windows too, so they could host PHP forums and the sort alongside .NET applications.. Or maybe PHP developers may choose to host on Windows so they can later on experiment with .NET.. That's the way I see it

Just my opinion.. Those that say Windows is dying away or is no where close to linux are terribly wrong

nanoplane

03-17-2006, 12:52 PM

I look at it this way...

I work for a company with > 50M customers.. some of our servers are linux based, none of them are windows based..

and I don't think the choice was based on cost :-)

IHSL

03-17-2006, 12:58 PM

On both counts, the answer is: It is up to the server management team. Windows can be as stable and fast as linux, when in the right hands. Reports to the contrary are speculation and mismanagement.

Remember: There is a reason most of the big linux companies have taken to the warpath on an anti-Microsoft crusade (when they aren't busy arguing between themselves).

Simon

Yash-JH

03-17-2006, 12:58 PM

I look at it this way...

I work for a company with > 50M customers.. some of our servers are linux based, none of them are windows based..

and I don't think the choice was based on cost :-

Of course, that was the PAST :)
The future may well unfurl differently ;)

But yes, if the servers are doing nothing but raw processing, Linux has lesser overheads and its Kernel is better designed to handle a large number of processes..

In the webhosting domain.. these limits are never tested.. What is tested in security and stability.. which Windows matches.. Where it exceeds is in administration and feature-set, IMHO

drakazz

03-17-2006, 01:07 PM

C# (pronouced as C Sharp) which is Microsoft's next version of C++.. C# introduces alot of Java type OOP concepts, but anyone who has programmed in C/C++ will find C# easy..

If you are developing in a team, and writing a large web application, some of your developers could write the underlying code for the web application in C# and compile them as DLLs, which another team developing the interface in Visual Basic could utilise... In Visual Basic, you can actually VISUALLY design your websites/applications and write event-driven code for your website.

.NET supports more languages, although C++ and VB are what I generally work with.. PHP doesn't come close in the sort of reusability and scalability that can be achieved with .NET. PHP doesn't come close to the sort of OOP concepts you can apply in .NET. PHP is a scripting language, .NET is a compilable, debuggable web application

Not to turn this into a .NET vs PHP debate.. But IMHO, .NET is gaining popularity for a reason and that combined with lowering SQL Server costs is going to drive the demand for Windows hosting... In the future, I see more people opting to host PHP driven sites on Windows too, so they could host PHP forums and the sort alongside .NET applications.. Or maybe PHP developers may choose to host on Windows so they can later on experiment with .NET.. That's the way I see it

Just my opinion.. Those that say Windows is dying away or is no where close to linux are terribly wrongactually, you can compile .so modules (*NIX alternatives to Windows dlls) and use them in php although needs bit more than just writing a usual dynamic link library. I think that .NET is great. If i could just afford it... I think there was some implementation of php scripting written on microsoft some time ago - unsure.
I agree with a lot of things you say, such as OOP as at least i know that applications written in .NET languages are faster as they are not interpretated at runtime - correct me if i am wrong?

I don't think that php on windows is such a great idea for web hosting because mostly php is better adopted to work with apache and *nix.
Scripting languages are very good for people who want to start off at programming. It really helps you understand some concepts although you can learn much better with more pwoerful and scalable/powerful examples such as C++, Python etc.

... In Visual Basic, you can actually VISUALLY design your websites/applications and write event-driven code for your website. Is visual basic implemented on Opera/Firefox? No. I think it's much better to use raw html output scripting that would be compatible strictly with most web browsers and platforms - even text browsers! I had got WebMatrix or something like that - got really mad as pages don't update when saved etc. and using ASP.NET components just annoys me. a Web Programming/Scripting language is much better when it outputs developer's defined tcode that would work cross-platform. As i heard of AJAX i think it's also a thing that's not so good and wouldn't try it although is very tempting.

Well, overall i think that i would come to web developing under .NET but that will be in a while as i think that curerntly PHP is most portable even though there are version incompabilities as a lot of web hosts simply don't tell you which php version they have got and rarely update it :angry:

Microsoft needs to do more work on Windows for User-System because i think that they've done a great and powerful job on Windows Server-Side. Most websites that i visited with .aspx are very fast and usually process data very efficiently and quickly. PHP is also in the lead and it would be better if Microsoft implemented .NET for other platforms as it seems very selfish...

Yash-JH

03-17-2006, 01:20 PM

I agree with a lot of things you say, such as OOP as at least i know that applications written in .NET languages are faster as they are not interpretated at runtime - correct me if i am wrong?

Correct. PHP is interpreted on the run, .NET applications are compiled and are executed faster

I don't think that php on windows is such a great idea for web hosting because mostly php is better adopted to work with apache and *nix.

You'll be surprised, PHP on Windows works exceptionally well..
We run many many PHP websites on Windows.. and I can tell you they give few problems

Scripting languages are very good for people who want to start off at programming. It really helps you understand some concepts although you can learn much better with more pwoerful and scalable/powerful examples such as C++, Python etc.

I'd differ. As someone who has programmed in a number of languages for several years, I made my first steps in Visual Basic 4.. Visual Basic is powerful programming language and many consider it the easiest to learn. PHP on the otherhand is more like C++ in its synthax and isn't as easy as VB.

Is visual basic implemented on Opera/Firefox? No. I think it's much better to use raw html output scripting that would be compatible strictly with most web browsers and platforms - even text browsers!

BIG BIG misconception you have that... .NET is a framework.. it allows you to use .NET supported languages, compile them and run them as a web application.. the .NET framework runs these applications, and IIS serves them as web pages...

The pages are served as HTML... Visit www.microsoft.com with Firefox, their site is .NET compiled..

When you design pages in Visual Basic 7, you design them as "Web forms", and can add resizing and compatibility code to make sure your design elements fit any browser.. its incredibly versatile.. And as I said, you can write event-driven code.. This is something PHP developers can only do with javascript

I had got WebMatrix or something like that - got really mad as pages don't update when saved etc. and using ASP.NET components just annoys me. a Web Programming/Scripting language is much better when it outputs developer's defined tcode that would work cross-platform.

WebMatrix is a free ASP.NET development toolkit... It is nothing compared to Visual Studio.NET. I'd highly recommend you use Visual Studio.NET, then draw your opinions :)

Visual Studio.NET in my mind, is undoubtely the #1 development environment out there right now..

Microsoft implemented .NET for other platforms as it seems very selfish...

Very untrue, Microsoft has a Mono project that is trying to convert .NET for linux.. However, Mono will always be 2 steps behind the Windows version.. But Microsoft is actually spending big bucks on making it available to linux

CoffeeCup

03-17-2006, 01:22 PM

Well, I hate to say this on a forum that is very pro linux.

I would assume that this is mostly due to budget. Linux servers tend to cost less, both in terms of licensing and hardware. There are always Licensing costs applied to almost anything involving Windows.

But I am willing to bet alot of money that in 5 to 6 years from now, Windows is going to be a more popular choice for hosting than Linux..

The biggest thing backing Windows is ironically, its universability. It can host everything, PHP, Perl, .NET, ColdFusion, etc... Linux can't.

I really like that as well, there are projects like Mono around to get ASP.NET to run at Linux servers, but it's not really the same thing.

Perl and PHP does run well on Windows servers, but using Open Source script can be a bit of a hassle at times, certainly not impossible though.

A nitpick though is that for SEF (for instance) many Linux users rely on mod_rewrite. While there are ISAPI filter for IIS that brings this functionality I've only seen a few hosts acctually supporting it.

For those of you who aren't familiar with .NET.. Imagine being able to write your web application in C++, Visual Basic and other languages.. and then compiling everything together to host it as a single web application, with any windows host. That is what .NET allows you to do..

Again, I totally agree. VB.NET is ridiculously easy to use, very humane syntax. The strength of .NET isn't that you can compile it as single web application, but you can reuse each and every part and function of your code. And, if you plan ahead you can construct DLLs with commonly reused code and add a reference to them. Easy as pie!

But there's a lot going for Linux as well. PHP 5 and MySQL 5 looks rock solid to me. The reason I'm sticking to .NET is the extensibility and flexibility. If you can write a web application, you don't need many extra hours to build almost any type of executable for windows either.

EDIT: Just noticed you already mentioned Mono. It's an Open Source project, and not officially sponsored by Microsoft. However, there were indications that the .NET framework were supposed to be platform independent. By basic functionality is also is, really. You just need the framework installed to be able to inerpret the compiled DLL...

Yash-JH

03-17-2006, 01:27 PM

EDIT: Just noticed you already mentioned Mono. It's an Open Source project, and not officially sponsored by Microsoft. However, there were indications that the .NET framework were supposed to be platform independent. By basic functionality is also is, really. You just need the framework installed to be able to inerpret the compiled DLL...

I am sorry, must be mistaken. I read somewhere Microsoft had its own Linux, .NET project. Must have confused it with mono

drakazz

03-17-2006, 01:29 PM

Very untrue, Microsoft has a Mono project that is trying to convert .NET for linux.. However, Mono will always be 2 steps behind the Windows version.. But Microsoft is actually spending big bucks on making it available to linux
I've heard of mono, didn't have time to use it.

Are you sure that it's Microsoft's product? Seems like it's Open Source software.

Considering that .NET is available on Linux, i've never heard of any Microsoft's software such as Microsoft Office or Halo to be available on Linux platforms. They even haven't released a version of MSN Messenger for Linux which is a big pain as they've modified some of their urls which doesn't allow me to view people's profiles using Gaim :(

And a quick reply to CoffeeCup's post:
In linux, you can actually run .exes and .dlls only when you have compiled with mono and if it's installed on the host system. I am not very sure about Web .NET Mono applications, totally confused - How would apache be able to use .dlls? Does Mono create .so Modules or what?

CoffeeCup

03-17-2006, 01:43 PM

And a quick reply to CoffeeCup's post:
In linux, you can actually run .exes and .dlls only when you have compiled with mono and if it's installed on the host system. I am not very sure about Web .NET Mono applications, totally confused - How would apache be able to use .dlls? Does Mono create .so Modules or what?

I'm not really educated in MONO, and have no real idea of how it work. But it does indeed work:
mono-project.com/FAQ:_ASP.NET

(Can't post URLs yet)

It mentions that it is indeed capable of handling codebehinds and dlls.

ArtieFishill

03-17-2006, 04:27 PM

drakazz

03-17-2006, 04:37 PM

To get back to the original question...HELL NO.

My servers run for weeks or months at a time without requiring a reboot....and remember the HD is almost ALWAYS spinning..so it's always doing something..

My WinXP desktop...reboots about ever other day either out of necessity (slows down, locks or install software, etc). And you rarely ever have to reboot a linux server when updating or installing new software other then maybe the kernal. LOL.
Are you comparing Vulnerable Desktop PC with your Secured Linux-Kernel servers?:))
Maybe get Win 2k3 and then compare, eh?
I think Linux Desktop is much better than WinXP, but maybe you shoult talk about Win2k3 vs Linux Server Systems...

I used to use Win2k3 as a Desktop PC (got a 180 or some day trial), was very very happy - was totally secure and fast, a beast. WinXP pro however, got me down - pretty slow for Web Dev.
But just one remark - I know how to use WinXP so very rarely i need a reboot. Most people who i know are bad at using WinXP, download bad things install etc. for example SmileyCentral, hotbar etc... and other crap. When you know how to be secure - that's when you should be exactly sure...
I will never use IE personally - it's a first hole in WinXP and there are lot of others which i had simply closed by applying some small things like hardWare firewall etc... And that's when I am secure and the system very rarely stops (Like Once in two Months?) :)

twhnman

03-17-2006, 05:27 PM

In my experience, Linus runs much more stable on a consistent basis. Windows has made great strides and performs much better than it used too. Unless you need specific features, go Linus. (Muuuuuuucg cheaper too!)

gearworx

03-17-2006, 06:04 PM

I dont know as much about the windows side of it (although i have had training on microsoft servers) but the internet is run mostly by linux (apache) i dont remember the stats but its a good bit higher with linux. Knowing that i would say that linux is more stable.

Unix first, then Linux :)

I will stand by Windows 2003 and say that is far more stable than it used to be and I believe Microsoft is redeeming itself from the everlasting complaints about the unstable OS. Remember folks, Unix has had 37+ years of developement. Microsoft has had 23+ years to develop. And Windows didn't really enter the game for the Internet infrastructure till '93-94 (don't recall).

A Win2k3 box without any customers can run just as long as a box with Linux box without any customers on it. Now add the customer factor and running insecure scripts and add the third-party vendors with faulty drivers and you'll see crashes all over the place. That may also hold true in Linux but not as common.

jt2377

03-17-2006, 07:05 PM

My WinXP desktop...reboots about ever other day either out of necessity (slows down, locks or install software, etc). And you rarely ever have to reboot a linux server when updating or installing new software other then maybe the kernal. LOL.

humm...if you need to reboot your XP, i assume there is something with either software or hardware driver.

my XP have never turn off and the only time i reboot is when i update.

if your XP have to reboot 'cause slows down, locks or whatever, you really have a problem on hand with your configuration.

the funny part about slow down is FireFox actually eat the most RAM! Can you believe this? IE actually eat less than FireFox and even that my XP still run for month without any reboot and by the way, Don't use Windows2000/IIS as an execuse to compare Windows hosting to Linux/Apache. You update Linux when a new kernel come out, so to be fair use current Linux vs Windows 2003/IIS6.

jt2377

03-17-2006, 07:16 PM

hello, just tho of a good reason for using MS Windows. if your customers need a lot of MS technology that is not aviable on *nix or is not as good as MS then you should use Winodws.

For example, MS Exchange hosting + WebHosting, Opensource just got nothing that can beat MS Exchange. i've seriously consider offering Exchange if not for their confusing liscense.

CoffeeCup

03-18-2006, 05:33 AM

the funny part about slow down is FireFox actually eat the most RAM! Can you believe this?

Yes I can, Firefox is a lot of hype. And (not like it has anything to do with it), parts of IE always run in the backgrounds on Windows, it has a lot faster start due to this.

I would pick Firefox over IE any day (but Opera over either of them). Firefox acctually renders XHTML and CSS correctly, and acctually listens to W3C that creates the specifications for those techniques. Also a browser that acctually updates with new versions more than once every 5 years or so just have to be more secure.

I'm an Opera-kind-of-guy myself, and judging from this I've made a smart choice sticking with it: http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html

drakazz

03-18-2006, 05:43 AM

Yes I can, Firefox is a lot of hype. And (not like it has anything to do with it), parts of IE always run in the backgrounds on Windows, it has a lot faster start due to this.

I would pick Firefox over IE any day (but Opera over either of them). Firefox acctually renders XHTML and CSS correctly, and acctually listens to W3C that creates the specifications for those techniques. Also a browser that acctually updates with new versions more than once every 5 years or so just have to be more secure.

I'm an Opera-kind-of-guy myself, and judging from this I've made a smart choice sticking with it: http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.htmlI am addict Opera user. I believe that Opera renders by W3 standards even better than Firefox as Opera does what you tell it to! Amazing isn't it? after spending few minutes on Opera, doing css correctly i need to spend hours fixing IE and firefox... :uzi: :uzi: as the post above from CoffeeCup contains a link, looked at it and seems that opera does the fastest thing. Even though opera is very fast and complies with standards, it always crashes when i use MySpace or any other websites that have destructable table code and which looks very ugly. That's when i have to go to use Epiphany or Firefox.

Rick-RikeMedia

03-28-2006, 09:28 AM

The only reason that i beleve people realy use linux more is because of the way its hyped up.

Its secure...but so is windows if your a 1/2 decent admin.
Its stable...again, 1/2 decent admins

The only real reason linux is more popular is because its a free option...thats why we have so many open source applications...because it doesnt cost the developers anything.

My 2cents

(i dare say someone disagrees and is going to say "Linux r0cks...window$ sucks!" or something to that effect :P)

Spyro

03-28-2006, 11:09 AM

These threads generally devolve into pointless firefights sooner or later. The problem is that arguing the superiority of one operating system over another in any area without some in depth analysis is utterly pointless. I will just make a few points.

Linux is generally believed to be more secure, stable than Windows because, on average, users of a more technical mindset use Linux. Since these more technical users are more likely to be competent system administrators, what you see is that the percentage of Linux boxes that are well run is greater than the comparable statistic for Windows. This is especially apparent when you factor in all of the people who use windows at home. The person that is administraing the system is the one that dictates the stability/security of the system. A system, regardless of operating system, will not secure itself and self-fix (whenever this does happen on a large scale, a lot of people are going to become jobless).

In response to RMWebs, Linux is not the more popular option because it is "free". The actual total costs of ownership of Linux are quite comparable to those of Windows, and may even be higher in organizations that have recently made a platform switch. The popularity of Linux and other open source goods has more to do with quality or percieved quality than price.

Though I would be one to argue that for individuals with a great deal of technical knowledge, Linux makes it significently easier for them to achieve their objectives without having to expend a great deal of capital. This is a real boon for (as an example) college students. The argument could also be made that the money saved in licensing costs by using Linux could be spent on something that creates more value for the company that is using the OS to power a service of some sort.

(As a side note, speed is more hardware and optimization related than operating system dependant.)

CoffeeCup

03-28-2006, 12:20 PM

The only real reason linux is more popular is because its a free option...thats why we have so many open source applications...because it doesnt cost the developers anything.

Acctually, that's far from the truth. You can write ASP or ASP.NET just as you would PHP. But, if you want a developing environment Visual Studio Express 2005 (http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/default.aspx) is free for a full year.

Most PHP IDE cost a litle buck in licensing. Believe it or not, but Microsoft works hard to bring ASP.NET to hobbyists and amateur developers as well.

Rick-RikeMedia

03-28-2006, 12:36 PM

I agree with both of your points...i think i need to reword my thread.

What i meant by linux being free was that with windows you have OS licensing fees and such, whereas with linux you have no licensing fees for the OS (unless you for some reason need/want to use products such as readheat enterprise).

Mark@Helm

04-13-2006, 09:52 AM

What i meant by linux being free was that with windows you have OS licensing fees and such, whereas with linux you have no licensing fees for the OS (unless you for some reason need/want to use products such as readheat enterprise).

It's a common missconception that because the OS on linux is free then it's got to be cheaper to run a hosting business using linux too. As someone mentioned about, when you consider everything you need to pay for to run your business and not just the cost of the OS itself, you'll find this isn't the case. In fact, in anyone is intereted in see the real hard facts regarind the cost of windows vs. Helm for Hosting pm me and I'll send you something interesting.

Matt R

04-13-2006, 10:20 AM

Can you provide any non-biased links to support that?

KGIII

Is'nt a question such as asked in the beginning going to end up with biassed answers ;)

I think windows can be just as stable if configured properly as linux is. The only thing that bothers me with my server 2003 standard box is that it has to update and restart almost every night.

Matt

Rick-RikeMedia

04-13-2006, 10:22 AM

Is'nt a question such as asked in the beginning going to end up with biassed answers ;)

I think windows can be just as stable if configured properly as linux is. The only thing that bothers me with my server 2003 standard box is that it has to update and restart almost every night.

Matt

Well we found a way around this.

We make it download the updates into a DIR and we can then choose which ones to install...most of them are unneeded fixes though.

IHSL

04-13-2006, 10:30 AM

...most of them are unneeded fixes though.
Precisely.

You really shouldn't be requiring a reboot every night, hosttds. In my opinion, your windows machine should stay up, with ease, at least 90 days at a time. I'd be very worried if I had a machine that had so many updates on it that it required we lose 10+ minutes of uptime per day through restarts.

Windows does unfortunately require more restarts per year than Linux (in most cases) but not by more than 2 or 3 times.

Simon

handaajay15

04-13-2006, 01:50 PM

Windows has improved a lot, but It as a long ways to go to be as secured and stable as linux.

Rick-RikeMedia

04-13-2006, 02:21 PM

Windows has improved a lot, but It as a long ways to go to be as secured and stable as linux.

But you are only assuming its insecure...how often do you get people getting hacked just because they are using windows?

Its as about likely to happen to a linux as it is to windows.

If someone wants access to your server that badly, they will get in regardless of OS.

zoid

04-13-2006, 02:36 PM

Windows has improved a lot, but It as a long ways to go to be as secured and stable as linux.
Can you back up this statement with some facts?

KGIII

04-13-2006, 02:49 PM

The only thing that bothers me with my server 2003 standard box is that it has to update and restart almost every night.

That's bothersome.

You should have to reboot once per month on Patch Tuesday. The second Tuesday of every month is when the updates come down with very few rare exceptions. (January - I think - they released an update earlier but since the start of the scheduling process that's the only time I can recall any variation.)

Updates only come down on that day of the month normally and very seldom come more often than that. If the updates don't apply to the server's functions you can leave it running for months at a time.

I'm not sure who the admin is of your box but, well, you might want to have them re-think their administration methods because there is no need to update and restart that often.

KGIII

drakazz

04-13-2006, 02:52 PM

Can you back up this statement with some facts?
People are getting some things horribly wrong.
Windows XP is one of worst Windows versions in security bit. Win 2k3 is much more stable and secure. It's also not intended for desktop use. Most people tend to have their systems crash - why? Windows never crashed for me - how's that? Because I can use it. It's not Microsoft's problem that you don't know how to use Windows properly so don't blame them. Still, I am not a Microsoft fan and prefer GNU/Linux over Windows.I agree that Windows has got big design flaws, like an internet browser being integrated into system, poor secrity inside the system etc. But I had never got cracked when using Windows system so - ?! Only the time I ever had bad days of Windows was the Windows ME and Older. Windows has got very poor design really, memory management etc, is really poor. Here, on Gentoo I can run 50 tasks in the taskbar, 200 Opera browser windows open at once and can feel slight difference. Never tried Mac - but people are satisfied with it too.

One of my friends was seriously mad at microsoft windows because of crashing and not working. I guess that he had smiley central things and other free toolbars or accepting some things, not knowing how to use the net properly (using IE, opening attachments withoout checking). In windows, I didn't use any kind of virus protection etc, for a year. Any results ? One infected mIRC script, when I chcked.

I get quiet annoyed that system slows down by the time - what's the cause of that? Design flaws, like always.

zoid

04-13-2006, 03:09 PM

Windows XP is one of worst Windows versions in security bit. I agree that Windows has got big design flaws, like an internet browser being integrated into system, poor secrity inside the system etc. Windows has got very poor design really, memory management etc, is really poor. Here, on Gentoo I can run 50 tasks in the taskbar, 200 Opera browser windows open at once and can feel slight difference. I get quiet annoyed that system slows down by the time - what's the cause of that? Design flaws, like always.
I am asking you the same question, can you back up these statements with facts?

One of my friends was seriously mad at microsoft windows because of crashing and not working. I guess that he had smiley central things and other free toolbars or accepting some things, not knowing how to use the net properly (using IE, opening attachments withoout checking).
Thats the actual problem. People install due to lacking knowledge everything they find, which will causes problems but then blame Windows.

drakazz

04-13-2006, 03:29 PM

* Web Browser integrated with File browser (This is the most bad thing I guess)
* No good terminal access
* No full control of system for you (the admin)
* User permissions have very narrow range of options
* Badly done browser - just because of integration
** Enabled ActiveX, COM, VisualBasic, goes with the fact that the system is not itself isolated from the non-admin user. On UNIX systems, whatever you'd do - your user account will only have write access to home directory and nothing else if properly configured (usually). Also, System allows execution of JavaScript as real scripts o_O

There's more to say but I don't know really much.
The fact that Windows Vista is going be much different from Windows XP (especially taking off browser form the system) is going to be a much better thing. But a downfall is that Windows Vista requires lot of memory... Just those graphics o_O
Mac does better I guess

Rick-RikeMedia

04-13-2006, 03:33 PM

* Web Browser integrated with File browser (This is the most bad thing I guess)
Please explain what is so bad about this...

* No good terminal access
Remote desktop...

* No full control of system for you (the admin)
Again, remote desktop...

* User permissions have very narrow range of options
And linux doesnt?!?!

* Badly done browser - just because of integration
So download firefox...

** Enabled ActiveX, COM, VisualBasic, goes with the fact that the system is not itself isolated from the non-admin user. On UNIX systems, whatever you'd do - your user account will only have write access to home directory and nothing else if properly configured (usually). Also, System allows execution of JavaScript as real scripts o_O

Control Panel = > Internet Options = > Advanced = > Disable

There's more to say but I don't know really much.
The fact that Windows Vista is going be much different from Windows XP (especially taking off browser form the system) is going to be a much better thing. But a downfall is that Windows Vista requires lot of memory... Just those graphics o_O
Mac does better I guess

You just guessed this bit...didnt you.

drakazz

04-13-2006, 03:45 PM

Read all the posts here: http://slashdot.org/articles/06/03/22/1817258.shtml

About Terminal Access:
I am talking about at least proper system terminal access - nothing to do with remote desktop really. In UNIX systems, it's much, much easier to control the whole system than in Windows. I spend part of the time when using the system just usnig the terminal. Terminal tools are great and usually don't need mouse. In windows, there is really no kind of a "base" for the terminal applications. The so called "MS-DOS" prompt is totally ****, I gotta say.

And no - don't tell me that you need to download something [again] to enhance your experience.
In Windows, if I'd like to installa theme - I'd have to go to Microsoft's website, search through it where something is, then validate the license key, install something , enable some services download the thing and it wouldn't work... Can't it simply be done in way gentoo has -> "emerge myhappytheme"? :)))

There isn't a lot of flexibility in Windows XP (I know nothing about Vista). As .NET framework [hopefully] is going to have the major part of the new VIsta, then I'd expect something much better.

There is nothing perfect in the world except Mac ;)
Mac is based on UNIX and is much more user-friendly and uncluttered like Windows ;) In Gnome desktop, I can easily configure what Icons I want to see (also without thousand steps of downloading & installing) and where and how I want to see. I gotta say that there are no really nice themes but what can you do - it's Open Source ;)
Macs are the greatest, but I don't own one (I would):)

zoid

04-13-2006, 03:46 PM

* Web Browser integrated with File browser (This is the most bad thing I guess)
Thats a design question. Also all current desktop systems do this.

* No good terminal access
Apparently you have never used the remoting capabilities of a Windows machine.

* No full control of system for you (the admin)
Can you elaborate on that?

* User permissions have very narrow range of options
Are you joking? Windows' permission system gives you much more control than any of the standard Unix file systems.

* Badly done browser - just because of integration
** Enabled ActiveX, COM, VisualBasic, goes with the fact that the system is not itself isolated from the non-admin user. On UNIX systems, whatever you'd do - your user account will only have write access to home directory and nothing else if properly configured (usually). Also, System allows execution of JavaScript as real scripts o_O
IE might not be the perfect browser, but this is not related to any administrator/user seperation, which Windows offers as well.

There's more to say but I don't know really much.
Then there cant be much more :D.

The fact that Windows Vista is going be much different from Windows XP (especially taking off browser form the system) is going to be a much better thing.
Vista is actually very similar to XP, because they are based on the same core.

But a downfall is that Windows Vista requires lot of memory... Just those graphics o_O
Which can be turned off.

Mac does better I guess
Many guesses I guess ;).

zoid

04-13-2006, 03:53 PM

I am talking about at least proper system terminal access - nothing to do with remote desktop really. In UNIX systems, it's much, much easier to control the whole system than in Windows.
Wrong.

I spend part of the time when using the system just usnig the terminal. Terminal tools are great and usually don't need mouse. In windows, there is really no kind of a "base" for the terminal applications. The so called "MS-DOS" prompt is totally ****, I gotta say.
I agree, the default shell of Windows isnt the best, but the only the shell and not the system itself.

In Windows, if I'd like to installa theme - I'd have to go to Microsoft's website, search through it where something is, then validate the license key, install something , enable some services download the thing and it wouldn't work... Can't it simply be done in way gentoo has -> "emerge myhappytheme"? :)))
So themes are a crucial functionality for you?

There isn't a lot of flexibility in Windows XP (I know nothing about Vista).
Can you elaborate on this?

There is nothing perfect in the world except Mac ;)
I guess this shows how unbiased you are.

Mac is based on UNIX and is much more user-friendly and uncluttered like Windows ;) In Gnome desktop, I can easily configure what Icons I want to see (also without thousand steps of downloading & installing) and where and how I want to see. I gotta say that there are no really nice themes but what can you do - it's Open Source ;)
Gnome and Mac? What do the one have to do with the other?

If themes and icons are really most parts for you, then you might be really more happy with Mac or Gnome.

drakazz

04-13-2006, 03:55 PM

What do you mean by most systems have browser integrated with the system o_OOOO?

Is it only KDE environment (which I hate), that integrates the browser with the system?

Tell me if you can run Windows XP *without* IE?
And then tell me if you can run any UNIX system without an internet browser.

One thing - if the system is commercial, it should be already setup for you to run (well, insert a password here!), not to spend a week on configuring it,?:)

I might be wrong about the filesystem control, NTFS has a very good one, I forgot :s

Microsoft has been told by OS designers that it's a bad idea to create a system with integrated browser. And here's the result...

My system never crashes or gets anything bad - and it's mostly not about me, but the way Microsoft gives the OS, which people don't really know hwo to configure (for example, first time users?)

Rick-RikeMedia

04-13-2006, 03:57 PM

drakazz, you've kinda gone off topic...we are not talking about windows as a home/office enviroment here...we are talking about experiance using it day to day as a webserver (running win 2003, which has a much better core than XP or Vista will ever have).

drakazz

04-13-2006, 03:59 PM

Wrong.

I agree, the default shell of Windows isnt the best, but the only the shell and not the system itself.

So themes are a crucial functionality for you?

Can you elaborate on this?

I guess this shows how unbiased you are.

Gnome and Mac? What do the one have to do with the other?

If themes and icons are really most parts for you, then you might be really more happy with Mac or Gnome.I'm taking themes for example
So can you tell me where how could i control the system (ready given)? Any examples?
Mac OS X is a good example of what a end-user system should be *like* - it does what you tell it to ;)

drakazz

04-13-2006, 04:00 PM

Rick-RikeMedia

04-13-2006, 04:02 PM

Then....why the argument? :s

zoid

04-13-2006, 04:04 PM

Tell me if you can run Windows XP *without* IE?
Yes, I can do that.

One thing - if the system is commercial, it should be already setup for you to run (well, insert a password here!), not to spend a week on configuring it,?:)
Well, I never had such problems :rolleyes:

I might be wrong about the filesystem control, NTFS has a very good one, I forgot :s
Exactly!

Microsoft has been told by OS designers that it's a bad idea to create a system with integrated browser. And here's the result...
Tell this all the application developers who depend on an available browser engine for their application.

So can you tell me where how could i control the system (ready given)? Any examples?
What kind of control are you referring to? System control is right in front of you.

But this is becoming off-topic.

Rick-RikeMedia

04-13-2006, 04:06 PM

Very offtopic.

To sum up:

Windows is just as good (and better with some things) at running a web server.

End of war :)

zoid

04-13-2006, 04:07 PM

Very offtopic.

To sum up:

Windows is just as good (and better with some things) at running a web server.

End of war :)
:D

Yes .

drakazz

04-13-2006, 04:16 PM

Very offtopic.

To sum up:

Windows is just as good (and better with some things) at running a web server.

End of war :)
2003 only ;)
Aggreed.:peace:

zoid

04-13-2006, 04:30 PM

2003 only ;)
No, not again.

2003 Server is the dedicated server platform, but XP supports it just as fine.

FHDave

04-13-2006, 05:27 PM

My servers run for weeks or months at a time without requiring a reboot....and remember the HD is almost ALWAYS spinning..so it's always doing something..

So is our windows servers.

My WinXP desktop...reboots about ever other day either out of necessity (slows down, locks or install software, etc).

Let's go down to basic here. We are talking about Server OS, and WinXP is not server OS. And I think, you have problem with yuor desktop. I haven't rebooted my desktop windows XP for the last weeks. And I can run it without even rebooting it for months.

Again, I see more and more comments from people who actually never run Windows Server OS product/family ... sigh.

cartika-andrew

04-13-2006, 06:28 PM

So is our windows servers.

I agree - our Windows environment has been stable and honestly, there isnt much of a differnence WRT performance or reliability.

However,

But I am willing to bet alot of money that in 5 to 6 years from now, Windows is going to be a more popular choice for hosting than Linux..

No way no how

The biggest thing backing Windows is ironically, its universability. It can host everything, PHP, Perl, .NET, ColdFusion, etc... Linux can't.

I think you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. Yes, Windows can run things *nix cant - however, your use of the concept of universability is backwards. The industry is trending towards open standards, concepts and languages - the only items Windows can handle that *nix cannot, are Microsoft proprietary languages - ironically enough, their proprietary nature is exactly what has pushed the industry towards *nix and will countinue to do so. The fact that Microsoft servers can run Microsoft proprietary languages is not a competitive advantage - the fact that you cannot effectively integrate MS products or execute them on neutral platforms is what has and will countinue to dictate a *nix dominance in server rooms....

mripguru

04-13-2006, 06:32 PM

..... and just as an interesting tidbit of information (unrelated, maybe?): a Microsoft VP was recently quoted as alluding to the fact that they will be placing ads in all versions of Vista when released.

mripguru

04-13-2006, 06:37 PM

I'm taking themes for example
So can you tell me where how could i control the system (ready given)? Any examples?
Mac OS X is a good example of what a end-user system should be *like* - it does what you tell it to ;)

I agree - I run Linux/Mac on the desktop, I wouldn't have it any other way :).

zoid

04-13-2006, 06:37 PM

mripguru

04-13-2006, 06:39 PM

But I am willing to bet alot of money that in 5 to 6 years from now, Windows is going to be a more popular choice for hosting than Linux..

I agree with CartikaHosting here - even Wall Street is moving away from Windows and into the world of open source. Wake up and smell the source code!

mripguru

04-13-2006, 06:42 PM

:roll2:

Can you please provide your source for that .....

Sure - it was in this months "The Economist". It had a story on the cover about France.

zoid

04-13-2006, 06:45 PM

Sure - it was in this months "The Economist". It had a story on the cover about France.
I'd prefer an online source.

mripguru

04-13-2006, 06:59 PM

I'd prefer an online source.

www.economist.com should have it, probbably.

zoid

04-13-2006, 07:08 PM

www.economist.com should have it, probbably.
Probably does not seem very certain. I would appreciate it if you could post a link to a source.

mripguru

04-13-2006, 07:20 PM

Probably does not seem very certain. I would appreciate it if you could post a link to a source.

http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6746815

So Microsoft now plans to graft subscriptions, downloadable add-ons and advertisements on to its core products. Again, it portrays this as an opportunity to open up new revenue streams, rather than a defensive tactic. “There are three ways to pay for anything in this business: ads, transactions and subscriptions,” says Craig Mundie, one of Microsoft's chief technology officers. “You'll see the company offer a full range of different ways to buy our product.” The difficulty will be getting the timing right, so that new products do not undermine existing cash cows.

dirtbag

04-14-2006, 01:19 AM

I can only relate my experience. I have been a network admin in large corporate and government networks for over 12 years. I used to be a Microsoft fanboy a while back like most early admins. But through the years, after many tumultuous experiences running hundreds of servers, serving thousands of workstations, Linux now gets my nod by a longshot. I can think of all kinds of reasons to use Linux over windows where possible. Thanks to all of the painful lessons that windows has so ungraciously taught me over the years.

gobylike

04-14-2006, 03:48 AM

I heard Linux is more stable. But Windows is more user-friendly.

zoid

04-14-2006, 04:20 AM

http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6746815
There is nowhere Vista mentioned, but just "core products" which probably refers to the Live products. Further these are all just rumours about potential products.

So could you please abstain from posting such misleading information.

I can only relate my experience. I have been a network admin in large corporate and government networks for over 12 years. I used to be a Microsoft fanboy a while back like most early admins. But through the years, after many tumultuous experiences running hundreds of servers, serving thousands of workstations, Linux now gets my nod by a longshot. I can think of all kinds of reasons to use Linux over windows where possible. Thanks to all of the painful lessons that windows has so ungraciously taught me over the years.
Which problems did you encounter in detail? Also in which versions?

I heard Linux is more stable.
I heard many people base their opinion on stuff they just heard ;).

netfreak

04-14-2006, 04:57 AM

Each platform has its uses. I myself use Windows Server 2003 for intranet servers handling tasks such as fileserver backups, print server, etc. For internet based hosting with web/mail/database, I only use linux. I've had security issues in the past with both Windows and Linux but I still feel much more confident in Linux. As a hosting solution, each platform has pros and cons. Windows is great for dealing with a familiar environment and simplicity of setup, but Linux tends to require a lot less for maintaining security and stability.

Mark@Helm

04-14-2006, 05:15 AM

Wow, I go away from my screen for a few hours and come back to about 3 pages of posts ;-) Just goes to my prove my point I think that, Windows vs. Linux is ALWAYS going to be something people argue about and I'm sure will never agree upon 100%.

I just hope people do the smart thing and find out the fats for themsleves and make their own decisions rather than being dragged along by some of the comments you see in these posts. It's hard to pick out the facts from the speculation a lot of the time.

Rick-RikeMedia

04-14-2006, 05:19 AM

I can think of all kinds of reasons to use Linux over windows where possible. Thanks to all of the painful lessons that windows has so ungraciously taught me over the years.

Can you share some more info about this?

To be honnest, alot of misconception is going on here between XP, Vista and 2003.

XP is not suitable for being used as a webserver, it was designed primaraly as a "users computer"...i.e general use of a PC (internet, email, wordprocessing, games, etc).

The same goes for Vista...its a PC, not a server

Windows 2003 is not designed for its desktop enviroment...it has a totaly modified, if not a totaly different core to both XP and Vista. IF you have not used windows 2003 as a webserver then you realy have no point in this thread.

It all boils down to presonal preference. Windows can do almost anything a *nix box can do and vice versa...its just a matter of choice.

Rick-RikeMedia

04-14-2006, 05:21 AM

freewebhosting

04-14-2006, 05:29 AM

Personal preference will be the dividing factor of this debate. My pp is that Linux is much more stable. We host customers on both sides of the fence. However, all our company pages are on Linux boxes.

Evolver

04-14-2006, 05:36 AM

Ok this was not in a big hosting environment but on my home servers.

I ran Win2K Server(OS Only)/Apache1.3/2 for a few years and the combo worked good and was pretty stable. Only reboots had to do with windows updates. The server probably received 10K+ hits per month on all the sites. It also ran my shoutcast server with song requester which was a memory pig. Since anyone could request songs in real time it was quite active each day. With the shoutcast (source stream going out to a relay server) I'd usually used up to 40 gigs per month of bandwidth including the websites.

Later I got another server and it ran Slackware 10.1/Apache 1.3 on it. Basically the same set up as my other windows server. I couldnt really see any performance difference.
I'd run a web based apache bench on both servers and they both received similar results.

Then my Slackware server for some reason lost power and the file system got corrupted. Logn story short I decided to try FBSD 6. Same thing. It seems to run the same as my windows server did.

Now since Apache 1.3/2 is not the best combo yet for windows I dont think its good to match up those systems.

At the end of the day it comes down to the person who knows how to operate their os and knows how to run a network. There are huge sites running Windows and there are huge sites running unix flavors.

zoid

04-14-2006, 05:37 AM

My pp is that Linux is much more stable.
Your personal opinion, not your personal preference, right?

But how can you say it when your run only Unix machines?

zoid

04-14-2006, 05:42 AM

Just goes to my prove my point I think that, Windows vs. Linux is ALWAYS going to be something people argue about and I'm sure will never agree upon 100%.
I agree, however I simply do not appreciate it if people try to bash something with rumours and false arguments.

XP is not suitable for being used as a webserver, it was designed primaraly as a "users computer"...i.e general use of a PC (internet, email, wordprocessing, games, etc).

The same goes for Vista...its a PC, not a server

Windows 2003 is not designed for its desktop enviroment...it has a totaly modified, if not a totaly different core to both XP and Vista. IF you have not used windows 2003 as a webserver then you realy have no point in this thread.
Generally I agree, however XP and 2003 Server are not that different. 2003 Server is just the enhanced new build of the NT 5 kernel. Hence XP can run a server fine too - even though there are certain limitions, not affecting TCP however. For a high end server I would nevertheless prefer 2003 Server, simply because it is the dedicated platform.

It all boils down to presonal preference. Windows can do almost anything a *nix box can do and vice versa...its just a matter of choice.
Correct.

jt2377

04-14-2006, 08:11 AM

At the end of the day it comes down to the person who knows how to operate their os and knows how to run a network. There are huge sites running Windows and there are huge sites running unix flavors.

this said it all. it's down to what you know and how well do you know it.

End.of.the.thread.

p.s. a lot of "pro linux" posters's reply are baseless and typical "slashdot" FUDs.

mripguru

04-14-2006, 11:43 AM

There is nowhere Vista mentioned, but just "core products" which probably refers to the Live products. Further these are all just rumours about potential products.

So could you please abstain from posting such misleading information.

Nowhere was Vista (or any other product) NOT mentioned by name. Also, I think that Windows *definately* counts as a core product - if it's not, then what is?. Also, as I said in previous posts, it was only alluded to, not explicitly stated. That said, I could be wrong, but, I think that there's just too many things that "fit" to ignore this as a wrong assumption. Also, just in the software industry itself, ALOT of companies are moving to a subscription based model (heck, even M$ does that on an Enterprise/Corporate level already with SPLA, so why not create a model for the home users?).

zoid

04-14-2006, 12:29 PM

Nowhere was Vista (or any other product) NOT mentioned by name. Also, I think that Windows *definately* counts as a core product - if it's not, then what is?. Also, as I said in previous posts, it was only alluded to, not explicitly stated. That said, I could be wrong, but, I think that there's just too many things that "fit" to ignore this as a wrong assumption. Also, just in the software industry itself, ALOT of companies are moving to a subscription based model (heck, even M$ does that on an Enterprise/Corporate level already with SPLA, so why not create a model for the home users?).
I never said Microsoft does not consider the subscription based model, which I think they do, although probably not as sole business model but rather as additional option.

What I was referring to, was your statement that Vista will be plastered with advertisements. I read such assumptions already quite often, the first time was around 1st April 1994 for Windows 4.0 .....

mripguru

04-14-2006, 12:48 PM

I never said Microsoft does not consider the subscription based model, which I think they do, although probably not as sole business model but rather as additional option.

What I was referring to, was your statement that Vista will be plastered with advertisements. I read such assumptions already quite often, the first time was around 1st April 1994 for Windows 4.0 .....

I'll admit, I *could* be wrong and took that statement (quoted above from the article) out of context, but, all the requirements in that statement are met/apply to Windows/Vista.

zoid

04-14-2006, 12:56 PM

I'll admit, I *could* be wrong and took that statement (quoted above from the article) out of context, but, all the requirements in that statement are met/apply to Windows/Vista.
Which requirements?

UK-Networks

04-14-2006, 01:35 PM

Personal Experiences.

Set up Win2003 server with IIS6 and Exchange2003 and configured within 7 hours. Restarted twice in 3 months for SP1 and exchange SP2.

Linux (CentOS) with Apache, Exim and Cpanel. 10 hour setup, and then another 3 hour multiplerebuild of Apache to fix a security bug. next week, another 30mins rebuild of apache for another bug.

cartika-andrew

04-14-2006, 01:38 PM

Linux (CentOS) with Apache, Exim and Cpanel. 10 hour setup, and then another 3 hour multiplerebuild of Apache to fix a security bug. next week, another 30mins rebuild of apache for another bug.

No disputing *nix is not as "userfriendly" - I mean seriously, command line vs GUI is a different animal altogether. Also, out of curiosity - how many of your problems were cpanel related? on your Windows setup, were you using any sort of CP?

jt2377

04-14-2006, 05:29 PM

I'll admit, I *could* be wrong and took that statement (quoted above from the article) out of context, but, all the requirements in that statement are met/apply to Windows/Vista.

listen...

no one will buy Windows if they see a lot of pop up ads. you really need to stop spreading FUDs, slashdot style.

it's an add on Windows service that will have option for ad such as hotmail.

No corporation/companies/people will purchase a OS if that OS need ad money to support the software development.

you really really take this FUD up to the next level.

think with your brain for a minute, really think about this. does OS with ad make any sense? would anyone purchase a OS full of ad? Do MS dare to alieante their users with ad on Windows? there must be a lot of linux zealots in you.

mripguru

04-14-2006, 05:44 PM

No corporation/companies/people will purchase a OS if that OS need ad money to support the software development.

No, it doesn't. However, any revenue is good revenue ;). That's all I'm going to say in this thread.

<EOT>

jt2377

04-14-2006, 06:01 PM

No disputing *nix is not as "userfriendly" - I mean seriously, command line vs GUI is a different animal altogether. Also, out of curiosity - how many of your problems were cpanel related? on your Windows setup, were you using any sort of CP?

it got nothing to do with GUI, you can automate a lot of stuff with vbscript/WHS.

you need to think about the difference between *nix and Windows.

Windows need to support 100% of hardware out there make by million of hardware vendors. there will alway be a hardware bugs and on top of that Windows need to support older hardware also! it alway amazed me that i'm able to run WinXP on a PII with only 128mb of RAM, it's slow but it RUN! it support legacy hardware just fine. Apple only make their OS work with apple so it's less of problem for them

different linux distros support different range of hardware.

for example, RedHat might support abc hardware but not xyz but you can find SuSe supporting xyz hardware but not abc. you can make RedHat support xyz hardware but that will require time to hack or search for drivers.

let's move on to patch/sercurity, since Windows need to support million hardware/software, there will alway be some lag of time before MS push out patch/security. MS make money on their OS so they are not going to release Windows as opensource for any of you to work on patch for windows. On the other hand, *nix can be patch up faster and easier because it's opensource but some patch may work on RedHat and it may not work on SuSe. Does *nix support million of apps like windows? do you see how much time you can cut it down if you don't have to worry about million of apps out there that won't break if you apply a patch.

WinXP SP2 break some software because MS beef up security and who do users blame? Microsoft! so a company with the most popular OS on the market can't do anything without extensive testing vs an opensource OS that only support limited hardware and software. you can guess who can release patch faster.

as for security, Windows have about 99% of the desktop market or close to 99%. if i'm a bot master who make money by infect users with virus/trojan and what not, do i waste my time writing my code targeting linux users, Mac users or Windows users?

you can aruge with me about why not do what *nix does, limit users access by not allowing user with admin privilage.

let's take away users admin privialge for a minute, now every time jane want to install a new program she going to su the root/super user/admin account, if jane doesn't use or know PC like we do, she is going to cuse out Windows for not letting her install a screen saver software that she download from internet thinking its safe 'cause it got a cute little angle icon.

so this is down to functionality vs security, MS Office allow macro/vba to automate or custom build softw base on Office. MS have functionality in mind but hacker have exploiting that functionality for their own gain in mind. you can bolt down an app to very limited function but would your user use something like punch card machine back in the old day or they want all the jazz that they can see on their pc? take away GUI and just have a DOS style OS like DOS 6. i'm sure it will be more secure but would you use it?

you have to assume hackers have unlimit time on hand and all they need is one hole to own your pc. you will alway have problem securing it, if *nix own 99% of the market. i'm pretty sure *nix users will have security problem because all hackers have to do is find one hole on one software to expolit the OS or one hole in the OS to root them all.

so please, think about the market share of Windows and how many apps out there that is not even patched, all hackers need is one hole and remeber how many stupid users out there too.

thank you

i'm ending my rant.

ByteFortressAaron

04-14-2006, 06:10 PM

UK-Networks

04-14-2006, 06:11 PM

Hmmmm, 2 quick fix bugs were with CPanel, the main one i had with the setup (being 3+hours) was getting YUM working, i posted on here in the tech section for help with it.

and i agree with what jt2377 says:)

jt2377

04-14-2006, 06:30 PM

I have worked with both windows and linux servers, and in any case, linux is more stable, and easier to work with when you know how to control it. The abilities of linux are greater when compaired to windows, and it is just an all around more suitable choice for hosting as the servers have less likelihood to crash as windows can be very flakey.

i'm pretty sure Windows can be as stable as *nix if they shrink it down to DOS level. it's functionality vs security/stablitiy but if MS do that, they might as well just build their own Linux distro. making Windows like DOS is not going to be the same as Windows with GUI admin interface.

MyDigitalHost

04-14-2006, 07:49 PM

Wow, I actually took the time to read this entire thread. This whole Windows vs. *nix debate kind of reminds me of the ethernet vs. token ring debates *grin*. That being said, both OS'es have their idiosyncrasies.

What really gets to me is when people spread FUD about Windows. Yes, admittedly, some of it is warranted from operating systems of the past. Each iteration of Windows for Servers is getting more and more stable, secure and robust, so the FUD is no longer applicable! I've migrated state agencies from Groupwise/Novell to Exchange/Windows and setup SQL servers, IIS , etc. In all instances, the installations have been rock solid and reliable.

Does this mean there isn't room for improvement? Of course not, but *nix has room for improvement too.

UK-Networks

04-14-2006, 09:08 PM

Exactly, from now on when you post, include what version of windows your referring too. My experience is with Windows 2003.

Vdevelopers

04-15-2006, 12:34 AM

Yash-JH

04-15-2006, 12:58 AM

Windows systems overall tend to have more background processes running. That usually chalks up to slower performance - although it's never actually quite that simple, it's largely dependant on what background processes are running. Windows systems tend to need to be restarted more often than *nix systems due to memory management and an eventual lack of free RAM left.

In terms of stability, it's really quite hard to say. Both types of systems, given that you're using the software designed specifically for hosting, perform very well and are very stable.

Incorrect, I have never ever restarted a windows system due to the lack of ram or little memory left. We ONLY restart windows servers if there is a major system update (once in a few months)

While its true that Windows systems have higher overhead (i.e. more background processes) that hardly matters in a the day and age where you can easily put upto 4GB of ram into your 1U servers... And it does NOT slow down the server in anyway.. If a linux distro can run in a minimum of say 128MB ram.. Windows may need 256MB ram.. But we all put much more ram on our systems these days

Memory management of Windows 2003 is very good, if not better than Linux. Win2003 has something called DEP (Data Execution Prevention).. It basically detects any buffer overuns by software on the system and prevents hackers from writing their own code into the memory.. This is something I've not seen in Linux...

Memory leaks are a thing of the past.. IIS6 has good memory management and gives you way more tools to deal with problematic websites...

zoid

04-15-2006, 09:02 AM

No, it doesn't. However, any revenue is good revenue ;).
True, but there wont be nonetheless ads in Vista, hence making such claims does not add to credibility.

I have worked with both windows and linux servers, and in any case, linux is more stable, and easier to work with when you know how to control it. The abilities of linux are greater when compaired to windows, and it is just an all around more suitable choice for hosting as the servers have less likelihood to crash as windows can be very flakey.
Well, you just repeated the same arguments others already posted on 8 pages without any fundamental proof. What makes you think Unix is more stable and easier to work with? Which abilities shall be greater? Please elaborate on all your statements or stop making such false arguments and reread the entire thread.

What really gets to me is when people spread FUD about Windows. Yes, admittedly, some of it is warranted from operating systems of the past. Each iteration of Windows for Servers is getting more and more stable, secure and robust, so the FUD is no longer applicable! I've migrated state agencies from Groupwise/Novell to Exchange/Windows and setup SQL servers, IIS , etc. In all instances, the installations have been rock solid and reliable.
Exactly, but people still continue to make false claims and statements either unintentionally due to lack of knowledge or intentionally for bashing purposes.

Windows systems overall tend to have more background processes running. That usually chalks up to slower performance - although it's never actually quite that simple, it's largely dependant on what background processes are running.
Well, you just said it is largely dependant on the actual amount of processes running and this is true for all operating systems. It is true, that current Windows versions come with a large number of running services. While many of them might not be necessary for every installation, I would assume any decent administrator to configure his installation to run only the necessary ones. It is the same as with Unix installations.

Windows systems tend to need to be restarted more often than *nix systems due to memory management and an eventual lack of free RAM left.
I do not agree on that. Memory leaks are an application specific thing and are not related to the operating system.

In terms of stability, it's really quite hard to say. Both types of systems, given that you're using the software designed specifically for hosting, perform very well and are very stable.
Exactly.

jt2377

04-15-2006, 01:44 PM

the background running service can be turn off, it is not diffcult. You can't strip down Windows like you can with Linux but you do have the choice to take away what you don't want to run.

Rick-RikeMedia

04-15-2006, 02:05 PM

I think its very clear to say that this is going to be a never ending debate...maybe a moderator should just close this thread as it will never ground to a hault.

cartika-andrew

04-15-2006, 06:28 PM

as for security, Windows have about 99% of the desktop market or close to 99%. if i'm a bot master who make money by infect users with virus/trojan and what not, do i waste my time writing my code targeting linux users, Mac users or Windows users?

99% of the desktop environment - sure they do - and rightfully so - its an excellent product - you cannot say the same thing on the server side. Many would argue that they launched the xbox line to secure the home and PC market, as their server side solutions were falling off the map

it got nothing to do with GUI, you can automate a lot of stuff with vbscript/WHS.

In the context I was referring to and with who I responded to, it has everything to do with ease of use and GUI vs non GUI for "some" users

Windows need to support 100% of hardware out there make by million of hardware vendors. there will alway be a hardware bugs and on top of that Windows need to support older hardware also! it alway amazed me that i'm able to run WinXP on a PII with only 128mb of RAM, it's slow but it RUN! it support legacy hardware just fine. Apple only make their OS work with apple so it's less of problem for them

This is all irrelavent - read what I wrote earlier in this thread - As a company that supports both *nix and Windows - I dont have much negative to say about any of them - I actually think Windows has performed quite well and certainly comparable to our *nix servers. However, Windows will lose this war in server rooms and it has very little to do with price, stability and performance or relative superiority of either product based on these benchmarks.