This white paper describes the differences between the Microsoft® Windows® Server 2003 family and Solaris 9 Operating System from Sun Microsystems. This paper focuses on five topics: hardware support, Internet services, reliability, manageability, and development and deployment.
The Whitepaper
Interesting read... MS really wants to sell customers on the Windows 2003 Server Family.
:P
Page Cannot Be Found!
mmm,
they must have taken the site down.. it was up last night though :P
opps,
This is a members only document..
but if you are interested I saved it on my HDD and have created a zipped archive out of the word document.
It's attached below.
Since you read it. Could you outline man differences for the No Time (or Lazy) group?? ;)
I personally haven't used Solaris at all, though we had a Solaris server in my previous place.
I doubt I will ge to to experiment with Longhorn at work (we Still use NT 4 Servers) :p
I'll try to break it down after work (here now). I have a softball game in 30 minutes at work, so I might get home a little early.
:D
It really is a good read, and of course MS is biased.. I am sure Sun could pull out their own reasons for choosing solaris 9 over WMS 2003..
Ok now for the nitty gritty with out all the fluff..
Basically this article compares Sun Solaris 9 with windows 2003 server...
They look at everything from processor support, fault tolerances, package contents, additional downloads, update support, and so on.
They have laid out several charts to make it easy to compare the two Server OSes, if you believe their data, then this would prove very beneficial.
One thing they were really hitting on was the simplicity of windows 2003 server compared to Sun Solaris 9..
and in regards to processor support, Sun's Solaris supports both 64 and 32 bit chips, but on two separate kinds of hardware, both SPARC and Intel... (64bit for Sparc, and 32 bit for INtel)..
Whereas Windows 2003 server (depending on the type, Enterprise, web, data, etc.. supports 32bit and 64bit on Intel machines with no changes to hardware.
It goes on and on, but one thing it didn't discuss really was the cost associated with both, and the length of support in terms of updates etc....
Hope that helps, it really is a long and lengthy read, but very interesting.
Yes, it is a neat reading, but with 52 pages, it is more like a book :D I have problem reading more than 2 pages articles without losing concentration.
As boog said, the charts are nice, because you can easily and fast compare.
Still there is some info missing for what I scanned thru the document. (I guess boogs read it all:p )
One thing I was wondering, any comment in how good are IIS 6?
Microsoft listed it as the HTTP, SMTP, FTP, and NNTP supported with IIS6, but IIS in W2K really leaves a lot behind. It crashes too often for the peace of mind. Without mentioning we moved all web services to Apache ;)
Apache is a fine set of tools. :D Wise choice, and free too!
What OS are you running with APache?
It was Red Hat 8, but we recompiled the Kernel, so you could say it is our own version of Kernel :D (Not we, because I am not really that good with Linux)
I run Redhat 9, and can't say one negative thing about it overall.. of course there are nick pick items like installing and uninstalling drivers and software (more difficult that windows) IMHO, and some hardware is not supported..
but overall a good choice.