Re: When is a Windows network not a Windows network

[Dr Syd Nicholson <sydnic@xxxxxxxxxx>]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Yes Joe,

I do have a Windows 2000 machine for IE. Not much choice. But I find it
inconvenient and now it too is becomming unstable. Services.exe takes up
almost 100% of the CPU and machine cannot be shut down?????

I also use a KVM switch to switch between devices

I also run Windows under VMWare and Win4Lin if required, but I use them
minimally because Windows can crash, Hog all the CPU availability and
make use of the machine almost impossible.

I find I can't cut and paste between these different 'machines' and I
spend a lot of time switching between sessions, printing or copying
text. Its just not as productive as I would like it to be.

Running IE under Wine is probably the best way forward.

I have tried Opera, as per a previous suggestion, and so far it seems to
work well.

When I added my two pence worth at the beginning of this discussion,  I
didn't realise just how much interest and argument it would provoke. All
I was asking was whether IBM took Netscape into account. Obviously I hit
a nerve, but perhaps I would have been better keeping quiet!!

Syd Nicholson



Joe Pluta wrote:

>>From: Syd Nicholson
>>
>>To go back to a network of Windows machines just to run IE on them will
>>cost me the $8000 dollars/annum mentioned above. IE is not free- it is
>>very expensive!!!
>>
>
>You've said this several times, Syd, and I guess I'm just confused.  Since
>when does it require a "Windows network" to run IE?  My network consists of
>OS/400, Linux, NT, Win2K and WinME.  Each piece does what it was meant to do
>(except for WinME, which basically does whatever it feels like).
>
>It would cost you less than $500 to set up a small Windows client.  They
>have book-sized computer cases now that are perfect for running small,
>dedicated machines.  For about $50 you can get an A/B switch for your
>keyboard and monitor, and the total footprint is perhaps 12 square inches.
>
>Ideal solution?  No, but as you point out, there is no ideal solution.  But
>this way, you have a complete Windows-capable machine without any worries
>about your mission critical systems.
>
>There is no sound reason not to have a Windows machine on your network.  One
>workstation doesn't somehow transmogrify your network into a bunch of
>Windows NT "servers".  It's just a peer, like any other, except that now
>your browser issues go away.
>

--