On Sun, 09 Jul 2023 15:37:28 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>On 7/9/2023 3:43 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>Fwiw, I am wondering of anybody else got pissed off at the nt 4.0 client
>>version only allowing for two concurrent TransmitFile IOCP functions to
>>be allowed at any one time? The nt 4 server allowed for enough
>>concurrent TransmitFile's to blow the non-paged memory. Grrr!
>
>Can't say I've ever actually used NT4 for anything. Or any windows
>release for that matter. In the NT4 timeframe, I was still using large
>IRIX machines and NT was considered a toy. We did have a source license
>for NT4 and modified it to use as one of our supported guest OS' in early
>hypervisor skunkwork (1998/1999) at SGI, so I was, at the time, quite familiar
>with the NTOS portions of windows (which were strikingly similar to the
>VAX VMS internals that I worked with in the early 80's).

Though the differences I suspect were crucial given that VMS could literally
run for years without an issue whereas NT4 was doing well if it managed a
few weeks without requiring a reboot.

Op 10.jul..2023 om 10:29 schreef Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2023 15:37:28 GMT
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 7/9/2023 3:43 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>> Fwiw, I am wondering of anybody else got pissed off at the nt 4.0 client
>>> version only allowing for two concurrent TransmitFile IOCP functions to
>>> be allowed at any one time? The nt 4 server allowed for enough
>>> concurrent TransmitFile's to blow the non-paged memory. Grrr!
>>
>> Can't say I've ever actually used NT4 for anything. Or any windows
>> release for that matter. In the NT4 timeframe, I was still using large
>> IRIX machines and NT was considered a toy. We did have a source license
>> for NT4 and modified it to use as one of our supported guest OS' in early
>> hypervisor skunkwork (1998/1999) at SGI, so I was, at the time, quite familiar
>> with the NTOS portions of windows (which were strikingly similar to the
>> VAX VMS internals that I worked with in the early 80's).
>
> Though the differences I suspect were crucial given that VMS could literally
> run for years without an issue whereas NT4 was doing well if it managed a
> few weeks without requiring a reboot.
>

I suspect that those differences were less in the system kernel and more
in the drivers. A lot of cheap hardware producers created insufficiently
tested drivers for Windows NT, but there were very little third party
drivers for VMS.

(But I loved VMS.)

On 10/07/2023 10:29, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2023 15:37:28 GMT
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 7/9/2023 3:43 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>> Fwiw, I am wondering of anybody else got pissed off at the nt 4.0 client
>>> version only allowing for two concurrent TransmitFile IOCP functions to
>>> be allowed at any one time? The nt 4 server allowed for enough
>>> concurrent TransmitFile's to blow the non-paged memory. Grrr!
>>
>> Can't say I've ever actually used NT4 for anything. Or any windows
>> release for that matter. In the NT4 timeframe, I was still using large
>> IRIX machines and NT was considered a toy. We did have a source license
>> for NT4 and modified it to use as one of our supported guest OS' in early
>> hypervisor skunkwork (1998/1999) at SGI, so I was, at the time, quite familiar
>> with the NTOS portions of windows (which were strikingly similar to the
>> VAX VMS internals that I worked with in the early 80's).
>
> Though the differences I suspect were crucial given that VMS could literally
> run for years without an issue whereas NT4 was doing well if it managed a
> few weeks without requiring a reboot.
>

We had an NT 4 file server that ran pretty much continuously (certainly
months at a time). I don't remember it ever crashing or needing
rebooted. The trick was letting it do the one job, and not trying
anything fancy.

I also remember NT 4.0 workstation as quite a stable version of Windows.
(After heavy use over many years, however, my system emptied it's
start menu and replaced it with a single entry labelled "Eject PC",
complete with appropriate icon. And it started asking me to close the
door on drive c:. But it still worked fine otherwise.)

I doubt if anyone would compare NT 4.0 favourably with VMS for solidity
or uptime, but it was not bad for Windows.

Am 10.07.2023 um 12:47 schrieb David Brown:
> On 10/07/2023 10:29, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Jul 2023 15:37:28 GMT
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 7/9/2023 3:43 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>> Fwiw, I am wondering of anybody else got pissed off at the nt 4.0
>>>> client
>>>> version only allowing for two concurrent TransmitFile IOCP functions to
>>>> be allowed at any one time? The nt 4 server allowed for enough
>>>> concurrent TransmitFile's to blow the non-paged memory. Grrr!
>>>
>>> Can't say I've ever actually used NT4 for anything.  Or any windows
>>> release for that matter.  In the NT4 timeframe, I was still using large
>>> IRIX machines and NT was considered a toy.   We did have a source
>>> license
>>> for NT4 and modified it to use as one of our supported guest OS' in
>>> early
>>> hypervisor skunkwork (1998/1999) at SGI, so I was, at the time, quite
>>> familiar
>>> with the NTOS portions of windows (which were strikingly similar to the
>>> VAX VMS internals that I worked with in the early 80's).
>>
>> Though the differences I suspect were crucial given that VMS could
>> literally
>> run for years without an issue whereas NT4 was doing well if it managed a
>> few weeks without requiring a reboot.
>>
>
> We had an NT 4 file server that ran pretty much continuously (certainly
> months at a time).  I don't remember it ever crashing or needing
> rebooted.  The trick was letting it do the one job, and not trying
> anything fancy.
>
> I also remember NT 4.0 workstation as quite a stable version of Windows.
>  (After heavy use over many years, however, my system emptied it's
> start menu and replaced it with a single entry labelled "Eject PC",
> complete with appropriate icon.  And it started asking me to close the
> door on drive c:.  But it still worked fine otherwise.)
>
> I doubt if anyone would compare NT 4.0 favourably with VMS for solidity
> or uptime, but it was not bad for Windows.

His assumptions are felt competence.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 12:15:15 +0200
"Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> wrote:
>Op 10.jul..2023 om 10:29 schreef Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>> On Sun, 09 Jul 2023 15:37:28 GMT
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 7/9/2023 3:43 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>> Fwiw, I am wondering of anybody else got pissed off at the nt 4.0 client
>>>> version only allowing for two concurrent TransmitFile IOCP functions to
>>>> be allowed at any one time? The nt 4 server allowed for enough
>>>> concurrent TransmitFile's to blow the non-paged memory. Grrr!
>>>
>>> Can't say I've ever actually used NT4 for anything. Or any windows
>>> release for that matter. In the NT4 timeframe, I was still using large
>>> IRIX machines and NT was considered a toy. We did have a source license
>>> for NT4 and modified it to use as one of our supported guest OS' in early
>>> hypervisor skunkwork (1998/1999) at SGI, so I was, at the time, quite
>familiar
>>> with the NTOS portions of windows (which were strikingly similar to the
>>> VAX VMS internals that I worked with in the early 80's).
>>
>> Though the differences I suspect were crucial given that VMS could literally
>> run for years without an issue whereas NT4 was doing well if it managed a
>> few weeks without requiring a reboot.
>>
>
>
>I suspect that those differences were less in the system kernel and more
>in the drivers. A lot of cheap hardware producers created insufficiently
>tested drivers for Windows NT, but there were very little third party
>drivers for VMS.

They couldn't all have been bad. The company I worked for at the time went
big time for NT4 and came to regret it. Most of the time it ran like the CPU
was a Z80 and then - usually at awkward times - would bluescreen.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 12:47:42 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>We had an NT 4 file server that ran pretty much continuously (certainly
>months at a time). I don't remember it ever crashing or needing
>rebooted. The trick was letting it do the one job, and not trying
>anything fancy.

Except MS sold it as a *nix replacement. However it was clearly was nowhere
near ready for 5 nines uptime doing any serious work. eg running any kind of
corporation scale RDBMS on it was risking your business.

>I doubt if anyone would compare NT 4.0 favourably with VMS for solidity
>or uptime, but it was not bad for Windows.

Hardly a recommendation. Windows didn't become close to reliable until W2K.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 14:10:26 +0200
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
>Am 10.07.2023 um 12:47 schrieb David Brown:
>> I doubt if anyone would compare NT 4.0 favourably with VMS for solidity
>> or uptime, but it was not bad for Windows.
>
>His assumptions are felt competence.

And again in english?

On 10/07/2023 17:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 12:47:42 +0200
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> We had an NT 4 file server that ran pretty much continuously (certainly
>> months at a time). I don't remember it ever crashing or needing
>> rebooted. The trick was letting it do the one job, and not trying
>> anything fancy.
>
> Except MS sold it as a *nix replacement. However it was clearly was nowhere
> near ready for 5 nines uptime doing any serious work. eg running any kind of
> corporation scale RDBMS on it was risking your business.
>

I think it was more NT 3.5 that was aimed/marketed as a *nix
alternative. NT 4.0 was more useable for a wider range of people,
especially on the desktop (rather than just a server), but it did this
by compromising stability and security. In particular, many drivers -
especially graphics drivers - were poor quality third-party code yet ran
with kernel permissions for efficiency.

(Our NT 4.0 server ran as a file server, but not a database server.)

>> I doubt if anyone would compare NT 4.0 favourably with VMS for solidity
>> or uptime, but it was not bad for Windows.
>
> Hardly a recommendation. Windows didn't become close to reliable until W2K.
>

W2K was also good, but I did find NT4.0sp3 quite solid. Once the Win9x
line died out, Windows stability became a lot better - it all depends on
what you do with it.

Op 10.jul..2023 om 17:16 schreef Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 12:15:15 +0200
> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> wrote:
>> Op 10.jul..2023 om 10:29 schreef Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>>> On Sun, 09 Jul 2023 15:37:28 GMT
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On 7/9/2023 3:43 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>>> Fwiw, I am wondering of anybody else got pissed off at the nt 4.0 client
>>>>> version only allowing for two concurrent TransmitFile IOCP functions to
>>>>> be allowed at any one time? The nt 4 server allowed for enough
>>>>> concurrent TransmitFile's to blow the non-paged memory. Grrr!
>>>>
>>>> Can't say I've ever actually used NT4 for anything. Or any windows
>>>> release for that matter. In the NT4 timeframe, I was still using large
>>>> IRIX machines and NT was considered a toy. We did have a source license
>>>> for NT4 and modified it to use as one of our supported guest OS' in early
>>>> hypervisor skunkwork (1998/1999) at SGI, so I was, at the time, quite
>> familiar
>>>> with the NTOS portions of windows (which were strikingly similar to the
>>>> VAX VMS internals that I worked with in the early 80's).
>>>
>>> Though the differences I suspect were crucial given that VMS could literally
>>> run for years without an issue whereas NT4 was doing well if it managed a
>>> few weeks without requiring a reboot.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I suspect that those differences were less in the system kernel and more
>> in the drivers. A lot of cheap hardware producers created insufficiently
>> tested drivers for Windows NT, but there were very little third party
>> drivers for VMS.
>
> They couldn't all have been bad.
>

There is a reason why Microsoft started with Microsoft certified drivers.

Am 10.07.2023 um 17:20 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 14:10:26 +0200
> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Am 10.07.2023 um 12:47 schrieb David Brown:
>>> I doubt if anyone would compare NT 4.0 favourably with VMS for solidity
>>> or uptime, but it was not bad for Windows.
>>
>> His assumptions are felt competence.
>
> And again in english?

You say things you don't know but that you feel.

On 08/07/2023 15:19, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 08.07.2023 um 14:51 schrieb David Brown:
>
>> I've tried to explain things to you, as has Scott.  Clearly, it is
>> all  so far beyond you that the Dunning Kruger effect has taken over.
>
> His reasoning is really 180 degrees opposite of mine,
> to an extent that is easily recognizable as fantasy.
>

Bonita, once upon a time for a year I worked on graphics processor
validation. (The company shut the office after a year, and no I don't
think it was anything to do with me).

This is ten years ago, and the processors were much simpler then.

Even so I was writing code to run on server farms. The fastest computers
we could get. All linked together with high speed networking. And even
so the simulations took _days_ to run.

What he has described is entirely consistent with my experience. If you
happen to be anywhere near Cambridge, UK I'm pretty sure I can get you a
face to face meeting over a beer with some people I know. I am certain
that they are running server farms for their validation too.

Andy

On 10/07/2023 11:15, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>
> I suspect that those differences were less in the system kernel and more
> in the drivers. A lot of cheap hardware producers created insufficiently
> tested drivers for Windows NT, but there were very little third party
> drivers for VMS.
>
> (But I loved VMS.)

Microsoft were aware of the problem, and taking steps to address it. I
have a glass in front of me labelled "IRP-OPOLOOZA" which is a souvenir
of when I spent time in Redmond for interop tests.

Andy

Am 10.07.2023 um 22:16 schrieb Vir Campestris:

> Even so I was writing code to run on server farms. The fastest computers
> we could get. All linked together with high speed networking. And even
> so the simulations took _days_ to run.

Maybe, but not doing calculations and on data which are constantly
fetched across the network.

> What he has described is entirely consistent with my experience. ...

He's lying.

On 7/10/2023 10:36 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 10.07.2023 um 22:16 schrieb Vir Campestris:
>
>> Even so I was writing code to run on server farms. The fastest
>> computers we could get. All linked together with high speed
>> networking. And even so the simulations took _days_ to run.
>
> Maybe, but not doing calculations and on data which are constantly
> fetched across the network.
>
>> What he has described is entirely consistent with my experience. ...
>
> He's lying.
>
>

The Troll Bait 666 ? Or is the the 665 version?

"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
> On 7/10/2023 10:36 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> Am 10.07.2023 um 22:16 schrieb Vir Campestris:
[...]
>>> What he has described is entirely consistent with my experience. ...
>> He's lying.
>
> The Troll Bait 666 ? Or is the the 665 version?

Have you considered *not* feeding the troll?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

On 7/10/2023 10:56 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 7/10/2023 10:36 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> Am 10.07.2023 um 22:16 schrieb Vir Campestris:
> [...]
>>>> What he has described is entirely consistent with my experience. ...
>>> He's lying.
>>
>> The Troll Bait 666 ? Or is the the 665 version?
>
> Have you considered *not* feeding the troll?
>

This might be a special kind of troll? Sorry.

Am 11.07.2023 um 07:40 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
> On 7/10/2023 10:36 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> Am 10.07.2023 um 22:16 schrieb Vir Campestris:
>>
>>> Even so I was writing code to run on server farms. The fastest
>>> computers we could get. All linked together with high speed
>>> networking. And even so the simulations took _days_ to run.
>>
>> Maybe, but not doing calculations and on data which are constantly
>> fetched across the network.
>>
>>> What he has described is entirely consistent with my experience. ...
>>
>> He's lying.
>>
>>
>
> The Troll Bait 666 ? Or is the the 665 version?

The cache has access times from four to five clock cycles on L1.
Memory has access times from 20-30ns (page hit) to 50-60ns (page
miss). I guess that a block access to a block on a remote SSD is
about 1ms. Do you really think you could do constant calculations
on data fetched that way without waiting on I/O nearly all the
time.
Please find some project on the net that is "number-crunching"
that way and which has this kind of access pattern on data
fetched from I/O. I'm too stupid for that.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:52:09 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 10/07/2023 17:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> Hardly a recommendation. Windows didn't become close to reliable until W2K.
>>
>
>W2K was also good, but I did find NT4.0sp3 quite solid. Once the Win9x
>line died out, Windows stability became a lot better - it all depends on
>what you do with it.

A server OS marketed to business shouldn't crash no matter what you do with
it, end of. It should also cope with much more than 1 application at a time.
Back in the 90s proper server hardware cost 5 or 6 figures so you wanted to
get your moneys worth from it which means just running it as a file server
is a non starter.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 18:23:46 +0200
"Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> wrote:
>Op 10.jul..2023 om 17:16 schreef Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 12:15:15 +0200
>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> wrote:
>>> I suspect that those differences were less in the system kernel and more
>>> in the drivers. A lot of cheap hardware producers created insufficiently
>>> tested drivers for Windows NT, but there were very little third party
>>> drivers for VMS.
>>
>> They couldn't all have been bad.
>>
>
>There is a reason why Microsoft started with Microsoft certified drivers.

Yet linux has 3 party drivers too.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 18:52:39 +0200
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
>Am 10.07.2023 um 17:20 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 14:10:26 +0200
>> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Am 10.07.2023 um 12:47 schrieb David Brown:
>>>> I doubt if anyone would compare NT 4.0 favourably with VMS for solidity
>>>> or uptime, but it was not bad for Windows.
>>>
>>> His assumptions are felt competence.
>>
>> And again in english?
>
>You say things you don't know but that you feel.
>

Why is it you think anyone whose experiences in IT don't match your own is
either lying or an idiot?

Back in the 90s I was doing contract work on Sun Sparc and IBM RS/6000 kit for
major corporations including 2 banks. None of them even looked twice at NT4 for
anything serious except for one small company who thought it would be a cheap
alternative to AIX once they'd ported they DBs. It didn't end well.

Am 11.07.2023 um 17:50 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 18:52:39 +0200
> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Am 10.07.2023 um 17:20 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 14:10:26 +0200
>>> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Am 10.07.2023 um 12:47 schrieb David Brown:
>>>>> I doubt if anyone would compare NT 4.0 favourably with VMS for solidity
>>>>> or uptime, but it was not bad for Windows.
>>>>
>>>> His assumptions are felt competence.
>>>
>>> And again in english?
>>
>> You say things you don't know but that you feel.
>>
>
> Why is it you think anyone whose experiences in IT don't match your own is
> either lying or an idiot?

I bet my right hand that you never had any experience with VMS.

On 11/07/2023 17:43, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:52:09 +0200
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 10/07/2023 17:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> Hardly a recommendation. Windows didn't become close to reliable until W2K.
>>>
>>
>> W2K was also good, but I did find NT4.0sp3 quite solid. Once the Win9x
>> line died out, Windows stability became a lot better - it all depends on
>> what you do with it.
>
> A server OS marketed to business shouldn't crash no matter what you do with
> it, end of. It should also cope with much more than 1 application at a time.
> Back in the 90s proper server hardware cost 5 or 6 figures so you wanted to
> get your moneys worth from it which means just running it as a file server
> is a non starter.
>

Alternatively, if all you needed was a file server, then NT 4 server was
a reasonable choice, at a hundredth of the cost of what you term "proper
server hardware". Our NT 4 file server did not crash. I don't actually
care if it might have crashed had we tried to run a database on it at
the same time - because we didn't run a database on it at the same time.

I agree with you entirely that you would not use it for running a bank
database, but most small companies do not run bank databases. Different
use-cases have different requirements.

(As that server got old and its disks got full, we moved to Linux for
the servers, and have stuck with that ever since.)

Op 11.jul..2023 om 17:44 schreef Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 18:23:46 +0200
> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> wrote:
>> Op 10.jul..2023 om 17:16 schreef Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 12:15:15 +0200
>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> wrote:
>>>> I suspect that those differences were less in the system kernel and more
>>>> in the drivers. A lot of cheap hardware producers created insufficiently
>>>> tested drivers for Windows NT, but there were very little third party
>>>> drivers for VMS.
>>>
>>> They couldn't all have been bad.
>>>
>>
>> There is a reason why Microsoft started with Microsoft certified drivers.
>
> Yet linux has 3 party drivers too.
>

I know. I used them. The kernel got stained and every now end then there
was a kernel crash.

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>On 11/07/2023 17:43, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:52:09 +0200
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2023 17:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> Hardly a recommendation. Windows didn't become close to reliable until W2K.
>>>>
>>>
>>> W2K was also good, but I did find NT4.0sp3 quite solid. Once the Win9x
>>> line died out, Windows stability became a lot better - it all depends on
>>> what you do with it.
>>
>> A server OS marketed to business shouldn't crash no matter what you do with
>> it, end of. It should also cope with much more than 1 application at a time.
>> Back in the 90s proper server hardware cost 5 or 6 figures so you wanted to
>> get your moneys worth from it which means just running it as a file server
>> is a non starter.
>>
>
>Alternatively, if all you needed was a file server, then NT 4 server was
>a reasonable choice,

So was unix and later Linux with NFS. A far superior protocol
compared with SMB.

Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes:
>Am 11.07.2023 um 17:50 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 18:52:39 +0200
>> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Am 10.07.2023 um 17:20 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 14:10:26 +0200
>>>> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Am 10.07.2023 um 12:47 schrieb David Brown:
>>>>>> I doubt if anyone would compare NT 4.0 favourably with VMS for solidity
>>>>>> or uptime, but it was not bad for Windows.
>>>>>
>>>>> His assumptions are felt competence.
>>>>
>>>> And again in english?
>>>
>>> You say things you don't know but that you feel.
>>>
>>
>> Why is it you think anyone whose experiences in IT don't match your own is
>> either lying or an idiot?
>
>I bet my right hand that you never had any experience with VMS.

Who will wield the scmitar? Can't speak for Muttley, but given my
six years of VMS work (some of which was in the kernel itself), he has much
more credibility than you ever will.