Forum Rules - Formats - Spotlights  -  Home - Library - New Additions

What IS the best NT?

JJ
edited March 2005 in Software
Well, we've got NT3, 4, 5.0, 5.1 and 5.2- which ones the best for running a web server?

Windows NT 3 and 4- as Zenithus says, "It's the best MS kernel about" ... I believe that true, but bear in mind that it is about 10 years old and isn't sold anymore.

Windows 2000- this could be ideal, opinions?

Windows XP obviously isn't ideal (NT 5.1, it only supports 10 connections!! How crap?).

Windows Server 2003- the name says it all, but what about price?


The reason I want this opinion is because I haven't a clue which one to run a web server with...I own NT4, NT 5.0 Adv. Server, NT 5.1 Professional and NT 5.2 Enterprise Edtion.

Please put your answers in the poll and also leave a comment.


Thnx!
«134

Comments

  • BODBOD
    Either XP or 2003
  • Ka0sKa0s
    JuleOS wrote:

    Windows NT 3 and 4- as Zenithus says, "It's the best MS kernel about" ... I believe that true, but bear in mind that it is about 10 years old and isn't sold anymore.

    If its a horribly old system, use NT4... if its Pentium 1 or so.

    Windows 2000- this could be ideal, opinions?

    On something like a P2 yes.

    Windows XP obviously isn't ideal (NT 5.2, it only supports 10 connections!! How crap?).


    *NOT* true.

    Windows Server 2003- the name says it all, but what about price?

    If you have a system that will support it - use it.
  • BODBOD
    XP SP2 is 10 unfinished connections, which can be fixed easily.......
  • JJ
    edited March 2005
    JuleOS wrote:
    Windows XP obviously isn't ideal (NT 5.1, it only supports 10 connections!! How crap?).
    Sorry, I correct that- XP Pro has 10 connections max and home has 5 connections max ... I read it in some mag ... a single connection is classed as:
    as many connections as possible from a single computer

    --- EDITED: ---
    And btw: it's a spare computer with 512MB RAM, runs Server 2003 smoothly and has sommit like a 2.xx GHz proccessor.
  • BODBOD
    I doubt the limit is different in Home to Pro
  • JoshJosh
    XP != NT 5.2
    (fail)
  • JJ
    Well, I'll give it a look-up on microsoft.com and check it out.
    If I find anything, I'll paste the link.

    Btw: I'm a newbie and this IS the first post I've made lol

    And it more than likely is- Pro is used in businesses that connect to domains and that can be accessed by hunderds of computers at once. Home CAN'T connect to a domain (from what I've heard) and it obviously can't because of the title 'Home Edition' ... I'll check it out on Monday, I'm going on my works experience and the place I'm going to has XP Home PCs.
  • JJ
    OMG!

    WHY THE HELL DID I PUT XP AS NT 5.2!

    Thanks for pointing that out, jcmoor!

    I shall correct myself.
  • BODBOD
    well the 10 connections thing isnt going to affect domains or anything, its mostly some P2P software and worms
  • ThumpThump
    XP Home Edition doesn't come with IIS so if you
    could figure out how to install it on XP Home it
    would have the same limitations. The instructions
    start out:
    1. Put your XP Pro installation CD in the CD drive.

    Thump
  • JackTheStripperJackTheStripper
    You don't need IIS, you could use Apache.
  • JJ
    That is a point and I will be using Apache 2.0.5x ... hopefully.

    IIS:
    A) sucks- it wastes too much processing time
    B) is too stuck to the bloody domain authentication process- I can remember saying:
    I DON'T WANT TO AUTHENTICATE TO GET ON TO MY HOME PAGE!!!!
    C) Doesn't do well with custom authentication through things like PHP, but if it was/is possible in ASP/ASP.NET, it would probably be supported for tht crappy thing only.
    D) Isn't named Apache
    E) Is practically the same thing in EVERY VERSION!
    F) Doesn't have two major versions.
    G) Isn't optional- OH WAIT! I got confused with M$' IE!
  • JackTheStripperJackTheStripper
    You're an idiot aren't you?
    JuleOS wrote:
    A) sucks- it wastes too much processing time

    Wrong -- get a real CPU.
    JuleOS wrote:
    B) is too stuck to the bloody domain authentication process- I can remember saying:
    I DON'T WANT TO AUTHENTICATE TO GET ON TO MY HOME PAGE!!!!

    Learn how to set it up correctly
    JuleOS wrote:
    C) Doesn't do well with custom authentication through things like PHP, but if it was/is possible in ASP/ASP.NET, it would probably be supported for tht crappy thing only.

    Last time I checked, PHP worked just fine with it.
    JuleOS wrote:
    D) Isn't named Apache

    I'm not even going to dignify that with a responce.
    JuleOS wrote:
    E) Is practically the same thing in EVERY VERSION!

    So? MS tweaks it, fixes bugs, and labels it as a new version.
    JuleOS wrote:
    F) Doesn't have two major versions.

    D
    JuleOS wrote:
    G) Isn't optional- OH WAIT! I got confused with M$' IE!

    Who fucking cares? LOL
  • ZenithusZenithus
    Personally, as JuleOS pointed out, I love NT4! It's the ideal OS for my little P1 166MHz server, and runs as smooth as anything, I've never had a single problem with it. On newer systems, personally I would use XP or 2000, more XP because of it's game compaibility, but NT4 is great for retro PCs.
  • JackTheStripperJackTheStripper
    Keyword is server. Unless you're Fish, you're server shouldn't be gaming.
  • ZenithusZenithus
    Exactly, my server is dedicated, I don't use it for anything but http/ftp/mysql/mail and I never would.
  • BODBOD
    FreeBSD owns windows for Servers :P
  • ZenithusZenithus
    not on my Dell P166 it doesn't, i've tried all sorts of OSs on it, and NT4 is the best en mi opinion. FreeBSD ran slow as fuck.
  • JJ
    Can I just say tht IIS basically sucks!!


    It's graphical and for big businesses it's crap to dedicate a new subdomain to a path!!

    I COMPLETELY rely on Apache because of it's lack of GUI and it's gain of multi-OS support.

    I have NOT to this day seen M$ develop IIS for any other OS ... oh wait, is that because IT COSTS!

    Apache is COMPLETELY FREE! The only thing you need to pay for is the bandwidth to download the thing and use it!

    I *hopefully* rest my case.
  • ZenithusZenithus
    I doubt that will happen, wait about 5 minutes, come back, and you'll have a dozen angry threats from various people (not mentioning any names).
  • JJ
    And btw, Zenithus, you made an excellent choice with NT4 ... I can't stand any other flamin file system with their stupid case-sensitivity.
  • ZenithusZenithus
    actually, i had a few problems with NT4's file system a week ago, which was my own fault (i forgot to convert the drives to ntfs!). i love FAT16, the little 100MB bits that disappear randomly, it's so much fucking fun, you end up kicking the hard drive, or in my case, converting it.
  • JJ
    I've been with Windows all my life, except for that bloody Omega when I was 3 and had that funny game titled 'Noddy' on it.

    Anyway, I'm just saying that when I first heard about Linux and that I thought it was kinda SHITE in the sense that it was so much different from Windows.

    So, my opinion is kind of biased in the fact that I only met Linux a few months ago!
  • BODBOD
    I said FreeBSD. not linux, they're different. just ask tom he'll tel you his opinions LOL
  • JJ
    Well la-de-dar ... it's funny how asking what OS would be ideal for a web server on the WINDOWS platform ... wait, how did the words Apache, IIS, FreeBSD, etc. come in to practice?
  • ZenithusZenithus
    Uh-oh, i see an argument looming...

    Another FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows debate, yippee...

    (notice sarcasm)
  • JackTheStripperJackTheStripper
    I never said any was better. I just said IIS doesn't suck.
  • JJ
    lol- a newbie/glum question:
    is tht bad? :P
  • JJ
    Right, give me 5 advantages of IIS to a large scale business running an enterprise intranet/internet server...
  • BODBOD
    well, MS are likely to give better support.

    btw. somebody fix their email address
Sign In or Register to comment.