From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_01B1_01C2E4CC.9C425790
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   He didn't say the ability to act as a domain controller.  He said =
domain capabilities and this has abaility to be a full domain member.

   The rest of what you are unclear about is irrelevant.  This is the =
Web Edition.  If you want one of the Standard, Enterprise, or Datacenter =
Editions, get it.

Rich

  "Geo."  wrote in message
news:3e693f0c{at}w3.nls.net...
  He's not wrong about domain capabilities, any NT server except the web
  server version can be a domain controller, the web server version =
lacks that
  capability. Also from what I read it's not clear if auth and file =
serving
  are limited to 10 connections or if that can be increased by adding =
CALs. If
  it can't be increased then he would also be correct about those (that =
it's
  lacking) although as I said it wasn't clear from the description I =
read.

  Geo.

  "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e68e419{at}w3.nls.net...
     You are wrong about NT authentication, wrong about file serving, =
wrong
  about domain capabilities.  Now, do you want to take back that you =
made
  nothing up?

     It doesn't include CALs because it doesn't need any for what it =
does.

  Rich

    "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
  news:3e68cd09{at}w3.nls.net...
    I made nothing up, notice the "no Cal's" part.  Of course you can =
add
  cal's and add all what I said, but it is extra cost.

    - Bob Comer


      "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e68ca32{at}w3.nls.net...
         You did admit making stuff up.  You wrote in
  news://news.barkto.com/3e681017$1{at}w3.nls.net

        I'm not so sure that can be said any more, but no matter I =
wasn't just
        talking overall OS functionality, but what you can do with that
  specific
        version of Windows Server -- with no Cal's, that means no NT
  authentication,
        files serving, or print serving, and I assume no domain
  capabilities --
        that's 4 areas that Windows is strong on and Linux needs to =
catch up,
  yet I
        can put together a Linux box that does all 5 of these things for =
a LOT
  less
        money.

      I referred you to
  =
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/default.ms=
px
  so that you can stop making things up and use real info if you want to
  criticize.  You have multiple times expressed no interest in visiting =
this
  site to avoid your making false statements.

      Rich

        "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
  news:3e68aa51{at}w3.nls.net...
        >   I didn't argue against your invalid assumptions.

        At least state them, if you can't even do that they don't exist.

        >You already admited you made stuff up.

        I did not.

        >You don't appear to have any interest in this.

        You're right, your argument style of late totally turns me off.  =
I am
  not
        nearly as much against you and Microsoft as you think I am...

        - Bob Comer



        "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e684a50{at}w3.nls.net...
           I didn't argue against your invalid assumptions.  You already
  admited you
        made stuff up.  I referred you to a reliable source of factual
  information.
        You don't appear to have any interest in this.  Maybe you would =
prefer
  to
        make false statements, which you now claim as an opinion only =
based on
  a
        fiction of your own imagination.  Of course you still haven't
  acknowledged
        that when you make up facts on which you base your opinions you =
should
  be
        honest and acknowledge that.

        Rich

        "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
        news:3e6835d9{at}w3.nls.net...
        >   It's not whether or not you are giving an opinion or not =
that was
  your
        major deception.

        LOL!  An opinion is not a deception.

        >  It was that your opinion was based on assumptions you made =
and not
  fact.

        And again, assumptions you have not argued against.

        >You just admitted that you made up what it was that you were
  comparing.

        I admitted no such thing.

        >Not that it wouldn't do you some good to prefix your opinions, =
as
  opposed
        to statements of fact, with "I believe" or "I feel".<

        I say it again, *ALL* I say here is opinion.  (It may be fact =
also,
  but it
        may not be, just not intentionally wrong.)

        >   In regard you your mention of propaganda, don't you think =
that
  this is a
        bit ironic given that your post to which I replied was =
propaganda and
  as you
        admitted based on a fiction of your own creation?<

        No, I don't as what I said wasn't propaganda -- to be using =
propaganda
  I'd
        have to have something to gain, I have nothing to gain by what I =
said.
  You
        yourself know I use more Microsoft products than Linux, and I =
like a
  third
        platform (the AS/400) the best. As for the last part, I created =
no
  fiction,
        I STATED AN OPINION.

        - Bob Comer




        "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e682dfc{at}w3.nls.net...
        It's not whether or not you are giving an opinion or not that =
was your
  major
        deception.  It was that your opinion was based on assumptions =
you made
  and
        not fact. You just admitted that you made up what it was that =
you were
        comparing.  Not that it wouldn't do you some good to prefix your
  opinions,
        as opposed to statements of fact, with "I believe" or
"I feel".

           In regard you your mention of propaganda, don't you think =
that this
  is a
        bit ironic given that your post to which I replied was =
propaganda and
  as you
        admitted based on a fiction of your own creation?

        Rich

          "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
        news:3e6821ab$1{at}w3.nls.net...
          > If you are just making assumptions you should state that you =
are
  giving
        an
          opinion based on assumptions and not making a statement based =
on
  facts.<

          As I have stated before, when I say something I am stating an
  opinion, no
          more, no less, if you want to take everything I say as fact  =
(or
  false
          fact,) that is your choice, but I have no energy to argue =
such.
  This is,
          after all, a discussion group, not a scientific journal of =
some
  kind.

          >It will avoid having your false statements pointed out.

          You haven't pointed out any...

          >If you care about facts, and I'm not sure you do, see


  =
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/default.ms=
px.
          <

          You're wrong, I'm tired of reading Microsoft propaganda like =
that.

          >   As for your comments regarding the web edition's =
suitability for
          something other than web server, maybe you should take a =
moment and
  ask
        what
          the likely purpose is for something called the web edition.<

          Well duh -- I was comparing it to Linux and I can do cheaper =
and
  more with
          Linux, that's all I said.

          >   In regard to free support, do you mean posting to a =
newsgroup or
  some
          infamous IRC channel?  Is this what you use to support your =
critical
          systems?<

          More than just newsgroups, but, that's how I support all our
  systems, even
          the AS/400.  To phrase it another way, we have no software =
support
        contracts
          on anything in my department. (Not saying I wouldn't want them
        necessarily,
          but they didn't have sw support contracts under the old =
manager...)

          No IRC or IM though, I loath that kind of thing...

          - Bob Comer


          "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e681879{at}w3.nls.net...
             If you are just making assumptions you should state that =
you are
  giving
          an opinion based on assumptions and not making a statement =
based on
  facts.
          It will avoid having your false statements pointed out.  If =
you care
  about
          facts, and I'm not sure you do, see


  =
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/default.ms=
px.

             As for your comments regarding the web edition's =
suitability for
          something other than web server, maybe you should take a =
moment and
  ask
        what
          the likely purpose is for something called the web edition.

             In regard to free support, do you mean posting to a =
newsgroup or
  some
          infamous IRC channel?  Is this what you use to support your =
critical
          systems?

          Rich

            "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
          news:3e681017$1{at}w3.nls.net...
            >  Can you be specific instead of hot air and hand waving?

            I just stated my opinion, that's all. I'm not here to list =
out
        everything
            possible.

            >   It's well known that Linux has less functionality.

            I'm not so sure that can be said any more, but no matter I =
wasn't
  just
            talking overall OS functionality, but what you can do with =
that
  specific
            version of Windows Server -- with no Cal's, that means no NT
          authentication,
            files serving, or print serving, and I assume no domain
  capabilities --
            that's 4 areas that Windows is strong on and Linux needs to =
catch
  up,
        yet
          I
            can put together a Linux box that does all 5 of these things =
for a
  LOT
          less
            money.

            >If you want to roll your own it can cost less for Linux, =
assuming
  your
          time
            is worth >nothing.

            There's actually a decent amount of free support out there, =
and
  you
        don't
            have to roll your own version, you can use someone's =
distribution.

            >If you want to use a supported version, like from RedHat, =
expect
  to
        spend
            much more for your annual subscription.  They will sell you =
a
        subscription
            to red hat linux advanced server for $1499 per year.<

            I would *never* pay Red Hat that much, they don't have =
enough to
  offer
            support wise.  I have spent that much on Microsoft products
  several
        times
            over up to now, but things are a changin.  I might add that
  Microsoft is
            quite costly for aftermarket support and I don't buy that =
either.

            >If you want their supported enterprise level web server you =
are
  going
        to
            pay another $395 to $895 annually.  That's more than four to =
six
  times
          more
            expensive than the Windows Server 2003 solution.<

            I got it beat -- I have a server here at home (always =
learning)
  that
        cost
          $0
            for the Linux and about $200 for the hardware.  (I also have =
a
  Linux
          client
            PC here that I paid $99 for and I'm not going to do that =
again, at
  least
          not
            this distribution.)

            - Bob Comer



            "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e67d5e4$1{at}w3.nls.net...
               Can you be specific instead of hot air and hand waving?

               It's well known that Linux has less functionality.  If =
you want
  to
        roll
            your own it can cost less for Linux, assuming your time is =
worth
        nothing.
            If you want to use a supported version, like from RedHat, =
expect
  to
        spend
            much more for your annual subscription.  They will sell you =
a
        subscription
            to red hat linux advanced server for $1499 per year.  If you =
want
  their
            supported enterprise level web server you are going to pay =
another
  $395
        to
            $895 annually.  That's more than four to six times more =
expensive
  than
        the
            Windows Server 2003 solution.

            Rich

              "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
            news:3e67b7d1{at}w3.nls.net...
              Less functionality, higher cost. Ease of use is a draw, =
but it
  would
          have
            to be even cheaper just for a web server.

              - Bob Comer


                "Rich"  wrote in message
news:3e67b63f{at}w3.nls.net...
                   By what criteria and how so?

                Rich

                  "Robert Comer"  wrote in =
message
            news:3e67ae88$1{at}w3.nls.net...
                  That's not good enough to compete with Linux.

                  - Bob Comer


                  "Geo."  wrote in message
            news:3e67a4e1$1{at}w3.nls.net...
                  > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/29567.html
                  >
                  > There will be no price increases (as such) when =
Microsoft
  ships
          its
            next
                  > server OS, Windows Server 2003, on April 24th, but =
there
  will be
        a
            new
                  > budget-priced version of the product aimed squarely =
at the
  web
            server
                  > market. Server 2003 Web Edition comes without client
  access
            licences, with
                  a
                  > 2gig limit on memory, 2-way SMP, and is $399.
                  >
                  >



------=_NextPart_000_01B1_01C2E4CC.9C425790
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   He didn't
say the ability =
to act as a=20
domain controller.  He said domain capabilities and this has =
abaility to be=20
a full domain member.
 
   The rest
of what you are =
unclear about=20
is irrelevant.  This is the Web Edition.  If you want one
= of the=20
Standard, Enterprise, or Datacenter Editions, get it.
 
Rich
 

  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:3e693f0c{at}w3.nls.net...He=
's not=20
  wrong about domain capabilities, any NT server except the =
webserver=20
  version can be a domain controller, the web server version lacks=20
  thatcapability. Also from what I read it's not clear if auth and =
file=20
  servingare limited to 10 connections or if that can be increased =
by adding=20
  CALs. Ifit can't be increased then he would also be correct about =
those=20
  (that it'slacking) although as I said it wasn't clear from the =
description=20
  I read.Geo."Rich"
<{at}> wrote in message news:3e68e419{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p; =20
  You are wrong about NT authentication, wrong about file serving,=20
  wrongabout domain capabilities.  Now, do you want to take =
back that=20
  you madenothing up?   It
doesn't include CALs =
because it=20
  doesn't need any for what it
does.Rich  "Robert =
Comer"=20
  <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>=20">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>=20
  wrote in messagenews:3e68cd09{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p; I=20
  made nothing up, notice the "no Cal's" part.  Of
course you can=20
  addcal's and add all what I said, but it is extra =
cost.  -=20
  Bob Comer   
"Rich" <{at}> wrote in =
message news:3e68ca32{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p;     =20
  You did admit making stuff up.  You wrote innews://news.barkto.com/3e681017$1{at}w3.nls.net">news://news.barkto.=
com/3e681017$1{at}w3.nls.net     =20
  I'm not so sure that can be said any more, but no matter I wasn't=20
  just      talking
overall OS =
functionality, but=20
  what you can do with =
thatspecific     =20
  version of Windows Server -- with no Cal's, that means no=20
 
NTauthentication,     
files serving, =
or=20
  print serving, and I assume no domaincapabilities=20
  --      that's 4
areas that Windows is =
strong on=20
  and Linux needs to catch up,yet =
I      can=20
  put together a Linux box that does all 5 of these things for a=20
  LOTless      =
money.   =20
  I referred you tohttp://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/de=
fault.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overvie=
w/default.mspxso=20
  that you can stop making things up and use real info if you want=20
  tocriticize.  You have multiple times expressed no interest =
in=20
  visiting thissite to avoid your making false=20
  statements.   =20
 
Rich     
"Robert Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote in=20
  messagenews:3e68aa51{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p;    =20
  >   I didn't argue against your invalid=20
 
assumptions.     
At least state =
them, if you=20
  can't even do that they don't =
exist.     =20
  >You already admited you made stuff=20
  up.      I did=20
 
not.     
>You don't appear to =
have any=20
  interest in
this.     
You're right, =
your=20
  argument style of late totally turns me off.  I=20
 
amnot     
nearly as much against you =
and=20
  Microsoft as you think I
am...     
- =
Bob=20
 
Comer     
"Rich" <{at}> =
wrote in=20
  message news:3e684a50{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p;       =20
  I didn't argue against your invalid assumptions.  You =
alreadyadmited=20
  you      made
stuff up.  I referred =
you to a=20
  reliable source of =
factualinformation.     =20
  You don't appear to have any interest in this.  Maybe you would=20
 
preferto     
make false statements, =
which=20
  you now claim as an opinion only based=20
  ona     
fiction of your own=20
  imagination.  Of course you still=20
 
haven'tacknowledged     
that when =
you make=20
  up facts on which you base your opinions you=20
 
shouldbe     
honest and acknowledge=20
  that.     =20
 
Rich     
"Robert Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote in=20
  message      news:3e6835d9{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p;    =20
  >   It's not whether or not you are giving an opinion or =
not that=20
 
wasyour     
major=20
 
deception.     
LOL!  An opinion =
is not=20
  a
deception.     
>  It was =
that your=20
  opinion was based on assumptions you made and=20
 
notfact.     
And again, =
assumptions you=20
  have not argued
against.     
>You =
just=20
  admitted that you made up what it was that you=20
 
werecomparing.     
I admitted no =
such=20
 
thing.     
>Not that it wouldn't =
do you=20
  some good to prefix your opinions,=20
 
asopposed     
to statements of fact, =
with "I=20
  believe" or "I
feel".<     
I say =
it=20
  again, *ALL* I say here is opinion.  (It may be fact also,but =

  it      may not
be, just not =
intentionally=20
 
wrong.)     
>   In =
regard you=20
  your mention of propaganda, don't you think thatthis is=20
  a      bit ironic
given that your post to =
which I=20
  replied was propaganda andas
you      =

  admitted based on a fiction of your own=20
 
creation?<     
No, I don't as =
what I said=20
  wasn't propaganda -- to be using=20
 
propagandaI'd     
have to have =
something to=20
  gain, I have nothing to gain by what I=20
 
said.You     
yourself know I use =
more=20
  Microsoft products than Linux, and I like=20
 
athird     
platform (the AS/400) the =
best.=20
  As for the last part, I created=20
 
nofiction,     
I STATED AN=20
 
OPINION.     
- Bob=20
 
Comer     
"Rich" =
<{at}> wrote=20
  in message news:3e682dfc{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p;    =20
  It's not whether or not you are giving an opinion or not that was=20
 
yourmajor     
deception.  It =
was that=20
  your opinion was based on assumptions you=20
 
madeand     
not fact. You just =
admitted that=20
  you made up what it was that you =
were     =20
  comparing.  Not that it wouldn't do you some good to prefix=20
 
youropinions,     
as opposed to =
statements=20
  of fact, with "I believe" or "I=20
 
feel".        
In =
regard you=20
  your mention of propaganda, don't you think that thisis=20
  a      bit ironic
given that your post to =
which I=20
  replied was propaganda andas
you      =

  admitted based on a fiction of your own=20
  creation?     =20
 
Rich       
"Robert Comer" =
<bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote in=20
  message      news:3e6821ab$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
       =20
  > If you are just making assumptions you should state that you=20
  aregiving     =20
 
an       
opinion based on =
assumptions=20
  and not making a statement based=20
 
onfacts.<       
As =
I have=20
  stated before, when I say something I am stating anopinion,=20
 
no       
more, no less, if you =
want to=20
  take everything I say as fact =20
 
(orfalse       
fact,) that =
is your=20
  choice, but I have no energy to argue such.This=20
 
is,       
after all, a =
discussion=20
  group, not a scientific journal of=20
 
somekind.       
>It =
will=20
  avoid having your false statements pointed=20
 
out.       
You haven't =
pointed out=20
 
any...       
>If you =
care about=20
  facts, and I'm not sure you do, seehttp://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/de=
fault.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overvie=
w/default.mspx.       =20
 
<       
You're wrong, =
I'm tired=20
  of reading Microsoft propaganda like=20
 
that.       
=
>   As=20
  for your comments regarding the web edition's suitability=20
 
for       
something other than =
web=20
  server, maybe you should take a moment=20
  andask     =20
 
what       
the likely purpose =
is for=20
  something called the web=20
 
edition.<       
Well =
duh -- I=20
  was comparing it to Linux and I can do cheaper andmore=20
 
with       
Linux, that's all I =

 
said.       
=
>   In=20
  regard to free support, do you mean posting to a newsgroup=20
 
orsome       
infamous IRC=20
  channel?  Is this what you use to support your=20
 
critical       =20
 
systems?<       
More =
than just=20
  newsgroups, but, that's how I support all oursystems,=20
 
even       
the AS/400.  =
To phrase=20
  it another way, we have no software =
support     =20
 
contracts       
on anything in =
my=20
  department. (Not saying I wouldn't want =
them     =20
 
necessarily,       
but they =
didn't=20
  have sw support contracts under the old=20
 
manager...)       
No IRC =
or IM=20
  though, I loath that kind of=20
 
thing...       
- Bob=20
 
Comer       
"Rich" =
<{at}>=20
  wrote in message news:3e681879{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p;         =20
  If you are just making assumptions you should state that you=20
 
aregiving       
an opinion =
based=20
  on assumptions and not making a statement based=20
 
onfacts.       
It will =
avoid=20
  having your false statements pointed out.  If you=20
 
careabout       
facts, and =
I'm not=20
  sure you do, seehttp://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/de=
fault.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overvie=
w/default.mspx.       &nbs=
p;  =20
  As for your comments regarding the web edition's suitability=20
 
for       
something other than =
web=20
  server, maybe you should take a moment=20
  andask     =20
 
what       
the likely purpose =
is for=20
  something called the web=20
  =
edition.         &nb=
sp;=20
  In regard to free support, do you mean posting to a newsgroup=20
 
orsome       
infamous IRC=20
  channel?  Is this what you use to support your=20
 
critical       =20
 
systems?       =20
 
Rich         
=
"Robert=20
  Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote in=20
 
message       
news:3e681017$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
         =20
  >  Can you be specific instead of hot air and hand=20
 
waving?         
=
I just=20
  stated my opinion, that's all. I'm not here to list=20
  out     =20
 
everything         =20
  =
possible.         =20
  >   It's well known that Linux has less=20
  =
functionality.        &nb=
sp;=20
  I'm not so sure that can be said any more, but no matter I=20
  =
wasn'tjust         
=

  talking overall OS functionality, but what you can do with=20
  =
thatspecific         =
;=20
  version of Windows Server -- with no Cal's, that means no=20
 
NT       =20
  =
authentication,         =
=20
  files serving, or print serving, and I assume no =
domaincapabilities=20
 
--         
that's 4 =
areas=20
  that Windows is strong on and Linux needs to=20
  catchup,     =20
 
yet       =20
 
I         
can put =
together a=20
  Linux box that does all 5 of these things for=20
 
aLOT       =20
 
less         =20
 
money.         
=
>If=20
  you want to roll your own it can cost less for Linux,=20
 
assumingyour       =20
 
time         
is =
worth=20
  =
>nothing.         =
;=20
  There's actually a decent amount of free support out there,=20
  andyou     =20
 
don't         
have =
to roll=20
  your own version, you can use someone's=20
  =
distribution.        &nbs=
p;=20
  >If you want to use a supported version, like from RedHat,=20
  expectto     =20
 
spend         
much =
more for=20
  your annual subscription.  They will sell you=20
  a     =20
 
subscription         
=
to red=20
  hat linux advanced server for $1499 per=20
  =
year.<         
= I=20
  would *never* pay Red Hat that much, they don't have enough=20
 
tooffer         
=
support=20
  wise.  I have spent that much on Microsoft=20
 
productsseveral     =20
 
times         
over =
up to=20
  now, but things are a changin.  I might add thatMicrosoft=20
 
is         
quite =
costly for=20
  aftermarket support and I don't buy that=20
 
either.         
=
>If=20
  you want their supported enterprise level web server you=20
  aregoing     =20
 
to         
pay =
another $395=20
  to $895 annually.  That's more than four to=20
 
sixtimes       =20
 
more         
=
expensive than=20
  the Windows Server 2003=20
  =
solution.<        &nbs=
p; I=20
  got it beat -- I have a server here at home (always=20
 
learning)that     =20
 
cost       =20
 
$0         
for the =
Linux and=20
  about $200 for the hardware.  (I also have=20
 
aLinux       =20
 
client         
PC =
here that=20
  I paid $99 for and I'm not going to do that again,=20
 
atleast       =20
 
not         
this=20
  =
distribution.)        &nb=
sp; -=20
  Bob=20
  =
Comer        &nbs=
p;=20
  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:3e67d5e4$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
            
=

  Can you be specific instead of hot air and hand=20
  =
waving?         &nbs=
p;  =20
  It's well known that Linux has less functionality.  If you=20
  wantto     =20
 
roll         
your =
own it can=20
  cost less for Linux, assuming your time is=20
  worth     =20
 
nothing.         
If =
you want=20
  to use a supported version, like from RedHat,=20
  expectto     =20
 
spend         
much =
more for=20
  your annual subscription.  They will sell you=20
  a     =20
 
subscription         
=
to red=20
  hat linux advanced server for $1499 per year.  If you=20
  =
wanttheir         =20
  supported enterprise level web server you are going to pay=20
 
another$395     =20
 
to         
$895=20
  annually.  That's more than four to six times more=20
 
expensivethan     =20
 
the         
Windows =
Server=20
  2003 =
solution.         =20
  =
Rich          &=
nbsp;=20
  "Robert Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote in=20
 
message         
news:3e67b7d1{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p;          =20
  Less functionality, higher cost. Ease of use is a draw, but=20
 
itwould       =20
 
have         
to be =
even=20
  cheaper just for a web=20
  =
server.         &nbs=
p; =20
  - Bob=20
  =
Comer         &n=
bsp;   =20
  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:3e67b63f{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p;            =
;   =20
  By what criteria and how=20
  =
so?          &n=
bsp;  =20
  =
Rich          &=
nbsp;    =20
  "Robert Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote in=20
 
message         
news:3e67ae88$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
            &=
nbsp;  =20
  That's not good enough to compete with=20
  =
Linux.          =
;     =20
  - Bob=20
  =
Comer         &n=
bsp;     =20
  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
=
wrote in=20
 
message         
news:3e67a4e1$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
            &=
nbsp;  =20
  > http://www.th" target="new">http://www.th=">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/29567.html">http://www.th=
eregister.co.uk/content/61/29567.html    &nbs=
p;          =20
  =
>           =
;    =20
  > There will be no price increases (as such) when=20
 
Microsoftships       =20
 
its         =20
  =
next           =
;    =20
  > server OS, Windows Server 2003, on April 24th, but therewill=20
  be     =20
 
a         =20
  =
new           =
    =20
  > budget-priced version of the product aimed squarely at=20
 
theweb         =20
  =
server          &nb=
sp;    =20
  > market. Server 2003 Web Edition comes without=20
  =
clientaccess         =
;=20
  licences,=20
  =
with           =
;    =20
  =
a           &n=
bsp;   =20
  > 2gig limit on memory, 2-way SMP, and is=20
  =
$399.          &nbs=
p;    =20
  =
>           =
;    =20
  >

------=_NextPart_000_01B1_01C2E4CC.9C425790--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4