Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Dec 04, 1999 at 08:33:37PM -0800, Greywolf wrote:
> > Personally, I think Sun ought not have been bedded by AT&T in the first
> > place.  Solaris 2.0 was a fscking disaster.

Nice way to get around the violent language filter :-)

> And 2.1, and 2.2, afaihh. My referrence in the other part of the building
> started to say you could use 2.3 and 2.4 with dozens of patches. Apparently,
> 2.5 was the first halfway decent, and in 2.6 already some of the performance
> wins it had over 2.0-2.3 were lost again.

Hmm, Solaris 7 feels a lot faster than 2.5.1 and 2.6 do, at least
on the machines I work on. And booting is about the same speed, if
not faster than NT on faster HW. It get's slower if you install
lots of sw which needs daemons started at boot time, though,
but this is equally true for NT, of course.

  Guenther