Alex,
I see we are in different camps :)
One thing that supports my contention, is how many times do you get a Unix machine showing you one of those "can't handle load" or "too many processes" messages? I forget exactly. But you know the screen I mean.
Both operating systems can handle medium sites, and medium load on the CPU or system. Once you start hitting 80+% loads (based on the Unix report) you start to see big differences in what the machines do. What this works out to, is NT requires more hardware sooner than Unix. Also, Intel requires more hardware sooner than Sparc.
I need to also say this: I was a windows/NT person up until about 18 months ago. The only experience I had with Unix is when it first came out, and using FTP to move files to my servers. I had no other interaction with it. I knew I didn't like it then because of all the problems I was having.
18 months ago I had to get my own server, and I became my own wizop, and in many ways my own ISP. It's a colo box, and I wanted to know everything I could about it, and make it work. I'm no where near an expert with Unix, I can set up the programs, make them work, and do most routine system/network tasks, but I know it's working better with Unix than I ever had with NT.
For years I was running a multi-line BBS. I tried Dos with Quarterdeck (the standard at the time), and when OS/2 2.0 came out, I moved up to that, then to Warp. I found it unbelievably stable, probably the most stable system I've ever used on a PC. But, M$ went out to kill it. Everything they did was to support Win 3.1 or NT at the time, and purposly did things to make sure OS/2 couldn't run Win 3.x programs, and other stuff.
I was in the thick of it, trying to run a network, and I needed the best OS. OS/2 _WAS_ a better windows than windows! If a windows program crashed in one window (I hey... It was still Windows!) only_that_ window was afected. No other window. I didn't have to worry about closing all the other windows and rebooting the machine. I could run 10 dos sessions, plus all the maintennance I needed, and still run 8 2400 baud ports off a DigiBoard. I rebooted the OS/2 machine once a week whether it needed it or not just to make _me_ feel better. The co-existing windows machine rebooted itself 2-3x a day whether I wanted it to or not!
Then, the program I was using decided that to become multi-tasking, it would choose NT over OS/2. Big disappointment.
I beta'd that program for a year before I finally moved to the web.
If a Windows 16-bit program crashed in NT, it took the ENTIRE 16-bit subsystem with it. Sure, the 32-bit system kept running, but the only way to run any other 16-bit program was to shut the whole thing down, and reboot.
Then there were the complicated, back-a$$-ward security features.
Ever have two or 3 NT machines working in a network, then take one down without following the "I know you, you know me, we're one happy family" proceedure???
<sigh>
Fortunately, GT is using PERL, perl is made for Unix, and perhaps the fact the programs are so good will help other people move from the windows world to the "real" world :)
So, just for the record ... I'm not talking from some hot-blooded point of view of picking an OS that _I_ liked. I tried them _all_ and had problems with everything except OS/2 (unless you call M$ a problem...) and Unix has been the best for me. I'm going to move my desktop/local network to Unix, since 90% of what I do is web/network now, and my new portable will have a dual boot for the few windows programs I still have to run now and again.
The web has been the great equalizer. M$ finally has to _compete_ in a changing world. I don't give them much hope. Too arrogant, selfcentered, selfish, and greedy.
"I may be wrong, you know, I may be right": Billy Joel.
http://www.postcards.com FAQ:
http://www.postcards.com/FAQ/LinkSQL/