what is better for Host, windows 2000 advance server or unix? why?
474828
It depends on the level of your knowledge. Use what you know better. Surely, UNIX is much better because at least its flexibility.
468663
if you google for unix commands you will find tons of tutorials on all the commands you will ever need. You could also just buy mac osx server sense thats a unix platform and much nicer to configure then the command line stuff.
1066730
A good service provider who cares about the client should make sure the client DOESN'T have to upgrade under any circumstances.  This said, there are situations when the uprgade is required because some mission critical-piece of hardware or software that the client just acquired requires Windows XP.  However, in a situation like this (especialy it if involves expensive hadware) it may be better to replace the computer rather than to just upgrade the OS; for example, there may be issues with USB 2.0 support on older computers, and you won't even know you have them until you upgrade.  \n\nA related development is when the cilent needs the computer to perform some server functions (for example, serve ASP pages for the locat intranet).  Normally, this would require IIS, but IIS cannot be deployed on Windows 98.  In this case, however, there are alternatives; Windows 2000 Professional will do the job just fine, so there's no pressing need to run for XP.
409054
Depends on your how advanced you are, and how much control are you willing to take, I myself, prefer anything that's opensource so I can mess around right now I am using this one free BSD I found it's pretty fast, and reliable, it doesn't look all that great but who cares.
20970
I also use mambo. But I also have hoste sites using Post Nuke. Give it a try!
573620
I work with many types of Unix, the primary types we have are Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, and Linux, but there are several others.  Of the bunch, I dislike Solaris the most, and I like AIX the best.  The built in volume management on Solaris stinks.  The only way to do good volume management in Solaris is to install the Veritas file system, which is an additional cost.  All of the others have good built in volume management.
168684
CA has an Easytrieve version for Unix, but it's not going to run on a Mac or other small machines.  Besides, the technology is more designed for a larger installation where file definitions are done once and many different users are writing reports.
1029356
Go to this site:\nhttp://www.nextech.com/index.asp?TermServSpec.htm\nand\nhttp://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Article/ArticleID/21813/21813.html\n\nIt will give you all the info you need.\n\nSystem requirements-\nI googled it and it says the system requirements for 2000/2003 are pretty much the same.\n\nThe hardware requirements for Windows 2000 Terminal Services depend mainly on how many clients will be connecting at a time and the usage requirements of the clients. Terminal Services server minimum requirements1 133 MHz or higher Pentium processor1 128 MB RAM; 256 MB RAM recommended1 2 GB hard disk with a minimum of 1 GB free space1 Additional 10 to 20 MB RAM per client connection Terminal Services client minimum requirements1 Windows-based terminal devices (embedded)1 Intel and Alpha-based computers running Windows for Workgroups 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 3.51, Windows NT 4, and Windows 2000Windows 2000 Terminal Services shares executable resources among users, so memory requirements for additional users running the same application are less than the requirements for the first user to load the application.For improved performance use:1 High-performance bus architecture such as EISA, MCA, or PCI. The ISA (AT) bus cannot move enough data to support the kind of traffic that is generated by a typical Terminal Services installation.1 A SCSI disk drive, preferably one that is compatible with Fast SCSI or SCSI-2. To increase disk-access time, use a SCSI disk drive with RAID.1 A high-performance network adapter. Consider having two network adapters in the server machine and designate one for RDP traffic only
1166404
I personally think Windows 2000 is the best for a computer at Work. Especially if you have a lot of users who share the network.\n\nFor home and personal use, I prefer Windows XP Pro because it has a nice user friendly and familiar interface and the security is always improving.
912425
I suggest Red Hat Fedora Core 4 OS.\n\n"ISPs in the area have all been "Shell access? Go away, please," for years."\n\nTrue and they should be if they care about the security on their shared-use servers.  I suggest to go with a dedicated or virtual-dedicated server.  Virtual-dedicated is a new technology out there that allows the affordability of a shared server with the useability of a dedicated server.  Admin access allows you to have root level access and install and run virtually anything on the server.\n\nSee the Virtual Dedicated hosting offer here http://www.xmlwebhost.com/web_hosting.php
11852
Visit:\n\nhttp://builder.com.com/5100-31-5076689.html\n\nThis will explain the process of installing and configuring Apache on Unix-type system. For windows, try \n\nhttp://httpd.apache.org/docs/1.3/windows.html\n\nIf you need any specific requirements, i.e. virtual hosts, let me know.
810767
If you need it "desparately" BUY IT!\nIt comes as part of Server 2003
992224
get both.  2000 is still being used by alot of people and get 2003 because alot of people are using that.  I would suggest getting both that way it looks like you have been doing this for awil.  My main suggestion is get the experince and the certs because as a CSO for my company i don't care how many certs you have from microsoft if you don't have the experence they you are getting a help desk job and have to prove yourself to work on a server.
298150
Windows 2000 and Windows XP should be fine if you not intent to run heavy program like gaming. But recommand you upgrade your RAM to 512MB, it make your programs run smooth.
289681
Linux is far easier to use in many respects(IMO). I truly believe you will get equal responses on this subject (1&#92;2 Linuux, 1/2 BSD)
799037
i would stay with windows me\n\nwindows 2000 needs much more resources than win me\nso it's going to be sortta upgrade rather than downgrade !\n\nwin 2000 & win xp are basically same family\nhome versions of the win nt series\n\nwin me is same family as win 98 & win 95\n\nif u could just share why's u wanting to change os\nproblems u facing or seeking some results ???\n\n>> that way i can address issue square on !
141068
There are a few things that are better. For instance OWA is much better in 2003 then it is in 2000. Windows 2003 comes with remote server and desktop capabilities built in and is easier to set up then 2000 terminal server. I don't like that I have to explain why I am shutting down the system everytime I need to reboot.