We're a Vision Site.Been running MS Exchange on NT4 for about 5 or 6 months now.Works a treat (when NHSNET does :-) ).
Stuart Clarkson
[log in to unmask]
>My suppliers are barely able to offer an NT platform for Vision
>yet alone an MTA solution and I suspect I will finish up being a
>cheap beta site for both of these.
>Horses for courses I know, but I would be interested to hear
>peoples opinion. What are my alternatives?
>Laurie Slater
>[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adrian Midgley
Sent: 31 October 1998 12:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Amazing what MS will do to ensure a higher version number than
Netware
- who have now released version 5, which runs the IP protocol as
its
native networking protocol, is actually here, not in beta, and
builds
on an installed base twice the size of NT.
I had to down my Netware 3.12 server (the 386 machine with 28
MBytes of
RAM) yesterday, after 233 days continuous running...
WHy? To move it so as to give more space in the server kitchen
and
hynotherapy room.
NT servers, I am informed, are rarely 386s and are unlikely to
run for
so long uninterrupted.
Which NT-using clinical systems do we have so far that use the
server
for anything other than file and print services - at which NT is
less
good than Netware?
Only those actually running server processes that minimise the
amount
of data sent over thenetwork have any excuse for either using NT
or
specifying high end server hardware.
"NT - user friendly as a cornered rat" is the tagline I had heard
suggested.
However, Netware have not yet cracked the last hurdle, AFAIK it
is
still not possible to play Solitaire on the server console
without
installing additional software.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|