Chris Holten wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:
 MB> I'm not talking about user perception, but unattended 
 MB> operation as a file server.  In that capacity, NT 3.1 
 MB> is very slow compared to later releases.
 CH> That is a quite general statement that a person with your
 CH> networking knowledge should know is not an absolute "truth"
 CH> and needs to be qualified specific to the individual case.
 CH> On small 10 user or less 10bt ethernetworks with older
 CH> hardware NT 3.10 is definitely not slower as a file/print
 CH> server than newer versions of NT. In fact with a 486-33, NT
 CH> 3.10 might even be a bit faster than than newer NT versions
 CH> and -certainly- as far as networking, it's going to be
 CH> faster and more stable than 16 bit WFWG 3.11!!
I would concede that there are probably cases in which a server running NT 
3.1 might be faster than a later release of NT.  These basically amount to 
situations in which the disk is not used much.  Even one workstation can peg 
the disk on any server, if certain kinds of tasks such as database indexing 
are being carried out.  If the server is used for a BBS, for example, simply 
reindexing message bases can push the server to the wall.
 CH> I -personally- used NT 3.10 for over 1 year (which you
 CH> obviously haven't), found that NT 3.10 as a file/print
 CH> server in a small 10bt network on the same 486 class
 CH> hardware, isn't a damn bit slower than NT 3.5x or NT 4.0 (or
 CH> noticibly slower than novell 2.x and 3.x for that matter
 CH> with 16 meg or more of RAM) and certainly it is a -bunch-
 CH> faster and more stable and secure than 16 bit DOS and
 CH> Windows for Workgroups which also has a 10 user limit and
 CH> practically -no- security at all.
We tested NT 3.1 for a place that was considering it for a Unix replacement.  
At the time, Microsoft was touting NT for its ease of administration, 
especially compared to Unix.  We quickly found that, if we loaded NT 3.1 too 
hard, it would simply fall over dead.  The new releases don't do that, but I 
am not talking about thousands of users, either.  We could actually backlog 
the I/O subsystem so badly that the disk queue would grow and eventually 
wedge the server completely.  Even one very busy workstation can be enough to 
do it.
 CH> Methinks you are
 CH> unrealistically and Ideally comparing to something other
 CH> than what the guy was going to be running in his network and
 CH> the amount of money he had to spend (NT 3.10 had already
 CH> been paid for) and the hardware he had to run it on (NT 4.0
 CH> needs a -bunch- more hardware resources and faster disk
 CH> hardware speed than NT 3.10 ever did). If he is using WFWG
 CH> as a file server, he can't have over 10 users. "Unattended"
 CH> operation and stability as a file server was NT 3.10
 CH> greatest point. The fact of the matter is that NT 3.10 was
 CH> optimized for network throughput at the expense of desktop
 CH> application speed. The only think NT 3.10 was slower at than
 CH> WFWG 3.1x was running desktop apps. As a file print server
 CH> it was 3 to 10 times faster than WFWG.
If money and performance are the primary considerations, and he is willing to 
invest the time to learn what he is doing, then Linux or FreeBSD would be the 
obvious choices.  If he is willing to spend money and he wants to stick with 
NT, then he should buy 4.0.  On the other hand, NT 3.1 is just going to suck 
down every bit as much time as Linux, but will lead to far worse results.
 CH> And, I have found NT 4.0, even with service pack III to be
 CH> less stable and far more resource hogging than NT 3.10 or
 CH> 3.5x which is why I only run it on workstations and not as a
 CH> file server, instead using NT 3.51 SP5 as my file server.
I can assure you that no one in a business environment has made that choice.
 MB> My advice stands: NT 3.1 is completely unsupported by 
 MB> Microsoft, it has huge and well known security holes, 
 CH> Actually NT 3.10 is supported about the same as Windows for
 CH> Workgroups 3.1x. Of course support by MS for both NT 3.10
 CH> and WFWG has essentially been stagnent for quite some time
 CH> new.
Windows for Workgroups is really supported: it was the end of life release of 
the 16-bit OS, so you can still buy it and get support for it.  NT 3.1 is not 
supported: if you call for support, Microsoft will tell you to upgrade to 
either 3.51 or 4.0.
 MB> and the components which will be most heavily stressed 
 MB> in a server are peformance bottlenecks.  It is 
 MB> reasonable to use NT 4.0, and it is also reasonable to 
 MB> use NT 3.5 in a network server, but I think using NT 
 CH> On a 10 user or less 10BT network, what the hell
 CH> "components" are you talking about that will be
 CH> "bottlenecks"? 
The disk.  One busy workstation can do it.
 MB> 3.1 is a clear and obvious mistake.
 CH> Mike, from your very biased negative comments about it using
 CH> terms like "disaster" and "obvious mistake", it's obvious to
 CH> me that you really don't have any close experience with NT
 CH> 3.10 and probably not all that much with Windows for
 CH> Workgroups as a file/print server in a small network either
 CH> (or you forgot a lot). Shoot we are only talking about a
 CH> small LAN (Not WAN) network, and an already purchased copy
 CH> of NT 3.10. It isn't like he was setting up a 1000 user site
 CH> with all the bells and whistles. All he wants to do is share
 CH> his goddam hardrive and printers with a few other LAN users.
Let me put it this way: when I ran a simple network client test program that 
did nothing more than issue file opens, closes, locks, unlocks, reads, and 
writes, an NT 3.1 server would go unstable and wedge.  The requirement was 
that the client had to be running on a fast enough machine and operating 
system to be able to cause grief to the server.  OS/2, which has a very fast 
network stack, was able to host such a client with ease.
 CH> In that situation, if he is seeking better network
 CH> performance and stability than his present WFWG file/print
 CH> server setup affords him, NT 3.10 would be well worth
 CH> trying. As a network file/print server it will be much more
 CH> stable and much faster than WFWG. The only place it will be
 CH> slower will be running destop apps from the local console,
 CH> but even doing that, it will be -much- more stable than
 CH> WFWG. It will probably run most of his 16 bit Windows and
 CH> DOS apps, but it may not run all of them ("backwards"
 CH> compatibility is about same boat as newer versions of NT).
 CH> The only 16 bit software I have found that newer versions of
 CH> NT run that 3.10 didn't was 16 bit FAX programs, and to get
 CH> a higher level of backwards "compatibility" for that, you
 CH> had to go to at least NT 3.51 Service Pack III). Since he is
 CH> running WFWG he won't have any 32 bit apps that may not run
 CH> as compared to newer versions of NT. NT 3.10 will migrate
 CH> his WFWG Desktop and has a boot manager to allow him to dual
 CH> boot between WFWG/DOS and Windows NT should he desire.  
He's more than welcome to try it, but my experience with NT 3.1 convinced me 
that it was a grossly unsuitable platform for any but the most trivial 
situations and applications.
 
-- Mike
--- 
---------------