From: "Robert Comer" 

>I think it will have way more functionality. The cost is insignificant
compared to all the other costs of running a web server.<

I wasn't just talking web serving when i said less functionality -- i was
talking other serving duties that would be prohibitively expensive on this
lite version of windows.

>I think your choice of phrase 'just for a web server' shows where you're
coming from. I think you're out of date/touch.<

Or are you?   Gone are the days when I can have a totally dedicated to 1
task server -- cost has become a very large issue and consolidating
functions is a must.

- Bob Comer


"Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
news:3e67caa2{at}w3.nls.net... I think it will have way more functionality.
The cost is insignificant compared to all the other costs of running a web
server.

I think your choice of phrase 'just for a web server' shows where you're
coming from. I think you're out of date/touch.

Paul
"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.
>
>

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