4 ms·

So 2004...that experience was probably running a mix of Windows Server 2000/NT. OS's that would be teenagers/in college now. It really is a different world in t

by jspaur 14y ago

So 2004...that experience was probably running a mix of Windows Server 2000/NT. OS's that would be teenagers/in college now. It really is a different world in the server OS space (especially in the enterprise datacenter space) now.

jlarocco 14y ago
Well, Oracle didn't stop working on their database back in 2004, either. And they didn't have to waste time playing catch up... I don't understand all the hate for Oracle. They sell products that work well and they make a lot of money doing it. What's the problem?
- toyg 14y ago
  > products that work well That's... debatable. The problem is that the Oracle portfolio is now so vast, after a decade of acquisitions targeted at "surrounding" SAP, that quality levels are very uneven across the board. Some products require constant attention from specialized personnel or they'll blow up in your face, the learning curve is always very steep, and some of them are just full of bugs. And I say that as one of those specialized folks. Also, their licensing terms (and the salespeople who espouse and enforce them) are unabashedly, shamelessly greedy.
raverbashing 14y ago
Apart from compatibility problems/old drivers, I would use Windows 2000 today in a heartbeat. Windows NT OTOH makes even Vista look good. Not that it isn't solid, but it's like driving a tractor.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]