Re: More bang for the buck? Linux Vs Windows?

Never done any performance testing although antedotal evidence suggests Linux is quicker but I would recommend a Linux solution over a Windows one anyway for these reasons (I am basing my comparison on similar Win2k/9.30.TC2 and Linux/9.30.UC3 systems we have out in the field): - The OS purchase is cheaper in the first place and doesn't require any additional third party software like remote control, virus checking etc. - There seem to be more bugs in 9.30.TC2, bugs I have never seen in the *nix versions. In particular there is one where view definitions mess up and become invalid that I have trouble with. - The remote support we do is a pleasure with Linux and a pain with Windows, particularly as a telnet session is so much faster than remote control software (yes, Windows has telnet too but it's very limited). This must translate into a lower TCO. - If you're used to HP, Linux would be a more logical step. More transferrable skills etc. - Linux supports raw IO which is very quick. Things like building chunks on NT/2000 with cooked files can take up to 20 minutes (blink and you'll miss it with raw IO). Having said this Windows systems aren't bad and some of the NT/7.31 systems we have work very well and I find them easier to use and administer than SQL Server on the same platform. Ben.