Sign in / up

back to article SQL Server on Linux? HELL YES! Linux on Windows 10? Meh

Once the second biggest enemy of Linux (SCO Group takes top honours), Microsoft is positively giddy about not just supporting Linux but actually building tools that run Linux in Windows and about putting previously Windows-only software on Linux. You can run Ubuntu inside Windows 10, install CoreOS and Docker containers inside …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *

Page:

  1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

    why not just run Ubuntu and put Windows in the virtual machine?

    Is exactly what I do and it works very well.

    But then I don't have a corporate sysadmin insisting that my desktop has to be a standard Windows image for their ease of management organisation wide, so for those in that situation I can see it kind of makes sense. But then you have to have Win10, so maybe you would ask for an Ubuntu VM on your Windows 7 corporate machine?

    15 3 Reply
    1. gv
      Reply Icon

      I'd like to do this, but I'm forced to run Win10, so I have an Arch VM where I do my real work.

      9 0 Reply
    2. Missing Semicolon Silver badge
      Reply Icon
      Unhappy

      why not just run Ubuntu and put Windows in the virtual machine?

      Because the laptop you are using has no open-source drivers, the graphics are flakey, suspend/resume doesn't work, the wireless requires manual futzing with to operate, and the battery goes flat is an hour.

      The main lappy makers are on a bung to ensure that Linux DOES NOT run them.

      :-( I'd love to run Mint on my T100Chi, but no chance.

      8 14 Reply
      1. Jonathan 27
        Reply Icon

        Re: why not just run Ubuntu and put Windows in the virtual machine?

        You can buy a laptop that supports Windows just fine from one of the major brands if you're careful. They don't actively try to stop you running Linux, most just don't really care if Linux works well or not. Look for ones that have a large percentage of Intel parts. Intel Wi-Fi, Intel iGPU, Intel CPU, Intel chipset, Intel platform management chip, they all have reasonable open source drivers. Nvidia and AMD GPUs are so-so on the open source drivers but you can get them to work if you try hard enough. But that goes for everything, not just laptops. Nvidia's binary drivers work ok if you're willing to install them.

        My XPS 15 (9550) runs Ubuntu very well, but I admit I have the Nvidia binary driver installed (Optimus even works) because the open source drivers have much worse performance.

        10 0 Reply
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: why not just run Ubuntu and put Windows in the virtual machine?

          I got an Asus N550JK about 18 months ago, it came with Win 8 or 8.1 but just a couple of weeks before Win 10 was available.

          Back then, there were a number of issues --in Windows--, most of which have not been resolved with the few driver updates Asus have provided since then:

          - the DVD drive was *really* slow, replaced with ssd anyway so no bother

          - it would not resume from hibernation properly and still doesn't

          - every time the sound is 'engaged' after not being used for a while, there was nothing at all until the volume was turned up by around 20% from where it was set. If it is already over 50% then it comes out really loud until I tap + or - just once, then it goes to where it should.

          I installed Mint, which required this configuration:

          - install

          - install Intel open source gfx drivers

          - add noatime to ssd mount options

          - change some acpi_osi= option in grub config so screen brightness buttons work

          That's it, it's been perfect ever since and for the work I do, the battery lasts exactly the same time and there are none of the above issues that Windows has.

          Even hibernation works flawlessly in Mint, but not Windows.

          So on that particular device, in terms of 'OS supporting the hardware' I'd have to say Mint wins hands down.

          But there is always the other aspect of 'software supporting the OS', and Windows clearly has the edge here, but for what I need Mint generally does a better job.

          I tried reinstalling Windows in a VM but it complains about the OEM licence key, and they wouldn't allow me to transfer it, even for use on the same physical device, in a VM :(

          Also, I was noticing that Windows thought the best time to reboot due to updates was during the night (before they added active hours), and I'm a night owl so often it was rebooting when I was downstairs making a coffee. I can generally use any OS for my tasks so if I am in Windows and they decide I'm not using it and it's safe to reboot, then they are shooting themselves in the foot because it will boot into Mint.

          4 2 Reply
        2. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: why not just run Ubuntu and put Windows in the virtual machine?

          And the suspend resume still doesn't work if you have a Broadcom network card

          Which is why I ditched Linux Mint and went to Windows 10 reluctantly.

          0 5 Reply
          1. Anonymous Coward
            Reply Icon
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: why not just run Ubuntu and put Windows in the virtual machine?

            Broadcom suspend / resume depends entirely on the kernel. Its fixed in later Kernels.

            This is why I dont recommend Ubuntu to most people (unless they're using older kit). Ubuntu tends to use older kernels, sometimes tragically old.

            The key thing to do when researching a laptop for use with Linux is visit one of the many Linux compatibility databases. I use the Arch wiki as it not only flags problems but also provides possible solutions.

            You should also check the forums. Unless the kit you're looking at hasnt been released yet you can almost guarantee some has tried to load Linux on it and will have flagged up problems (if any) that exist.

            I generally stick to a specific formula to ensure I get the best compatibility.

            CPU - Intel Core Series (avoid ATOM, its a minefield).

            Graphics - (If its a laptop, Intel, if its a new GPU nvidia, if its an old GPU AMD).

            Network - Atheros / Intel / Broadcom

            Motherboard - Asus / SuperMicro / Intel

            Stick to this and you will have very few issues.

            1 0 Reply
        3. dajames
          Reply Icon
          Joke

          Re: why not just run Ubuntu and put Windows in the virtual machine?

          You can buy a laptop that supports Windows just fine from one of the major brands if you're careful.

          See icon.

          0 0 Reply
      2. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: why not just run Ubuntu and put Windows in the virtual machine?

        >> The main lappy makers are on a bung to ensure that Linux DOES NOT run them.

        Yep - its the vendors conspiring against Linux, and the dodgy tactics of microsoft, and the stupidity of the users for not adopting Linux, and basically everyone elses fault that Linux isn't doing so well on the desktop

        5 13 Reply
      3. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: why not just run Ubuntu and put Windows in the virtual machine?

        @missing semicolon

        Utter bollocks.

        Asus and Lenovo Laptops are often absolutely fine.

        I myself run Arch on a UX303LA with zero problems.

        Battery life is around 6 to 7 hours. Which is about 2-3 hours more than Windows 10 because of better CPU management.

        Also, do a clean install of Windows on any OEM machine and I guarantee most of them won't even have networking unless you download the required drivers from the manufacturers website.

        Id say out of the box, by default, Linux supports more common hardware. Especially network cards.

        Its very very rare for me to have to install a third party driver into Linux. Whereas every Dell laptop ive installed a clean Windows on I've had to spend at least an hour installing drivers and rebooting.

        Granted Wifi on Linux can be poor, but to be fair if you end up buying a laptop with poorly supported hardware your research failed not Linux.

        I always thoroughly research specific components before I buy anything.

        Usually by downloading the drivers from the manufacturer and having a look at the handy INF files and using the extremely useful Arch wiki.

        Finally, if you sir are struggling to spec a laptop to fit the requirements of a piece of software then you sir are not fit for this community.

        My daft old Northern Monkey dad can manage it so you shouldn't even have to think about it.

        11 4 Reply
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: why not just run Ubuntu and put Windows in the virtual machine?

          "... if you end up buying a laptop with poorly supported hardware your research failed not Linux."

          Well said - if you know you're going to be using Linux on any system before you own that system then this is so true.

          5 0 Reply
        2. Mark Dempster
          Reply Icon

          Re: why not just run Ubuntu and put Windows in the virtual machine?

          >Battery life is around 6 to 7 hours. Which is about 2-3 hours more than Windows 10 because of better CPU management.<

          That's an unusual experience; battery life in Linux / Win10 is most commonly the other way around

          >Also, do a clean install of Windows on any OEM machine and I guarantee most of them won't even have networking unless you download the required drivers from the manufacturers website.<

          That very much depends on how old your Windows installation media is, just as it would for Linux

          >Id say out of the box, by default, Linux supports more common hardware. Especially network cards.<

          It has a lot of generic drivers, which might *just about* work for particular hardware, but often it's not well optimised.

          >Granted Wifi on Linux can be poor, but to be fair if you end up buying a laptop with poorly supported hardware your research failed not Linux.<

          But aren't you arguing the opposite in Window's case?

          >Finally, if you sir are struggling to spec a laptop to fit the requirements of a piece of software then you sir are not fit for this community.<

          But should you really need to in 2017? Surely it should all just work.

          Linux has its uses, and its devoted fans, but it has a long way to go before it can be properly manageable in a corporate desktop environment. The very flexibility/customisability that its fans love count heavily against it - and the same is true for non-techie home users too.

          3 7 Reply
      4. Wayland
        Reply Icon

        Re: why not just run Ubuntu and put Windows in the virtual machine?

        I'm running Mint on my ex-corporate EliteBook 8440p. I had to unlock the BIOS before I could make any changes though.

        1 0 Reply
      5. BinkyTheMagicPaperclip Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: why not just run Ubuntu and put Windows in the virtual machine?

        >The main lappy makers are on a bung to ensure that Linux DOES NOT run them.

        >:-( I'd love to run Mint on my T100Chi, but no chance.

        Do take off that tinfoil hat.

        The majority of manufacturers don't care if you're running anything other than the recent versions of Windows. It simply is not tested sufficiently/at all elsewhere.

        There's a post on OpenBSD tech today saying that, they need to pretend to be Darwin to get suspend working correctly on Apple hardware. Linux has had to do the same thing.

        ACPI/etc tables are tested only against a restricted set of configurations. In the event that NewMungeyOS is passed in as an identification string, don't expect to receive anything reasonable back.

        1 0 Reply
      6. Missing Semicolon Silver badge
        Reply Icon
        Unhappy

        Re: why not just run Ubuntu and put Windows in the virtual machine?

        Well, that was interesting. Do the 12 downvoters seem to think that I can nip down to PC world, and pick up J Random lappy, blow away WIndows 10 and stuff an Ubuntu DVD in? It might work for the mainstream corporate/engineering machines, but consumer devices have no chance.

        0 0 Reply
    3. TheVogon
      Reply Icon

      "At the very least it meant that SQL Server had a cost above and beyond the financial."

      You mean "costs" such as SQL + Windows Server having the lowest combined database + OS security vulnerability total for every single year for the last decade versus any other commercial OS + database vendor combination?

      1 13 Reply
    4. TheVogon
      Reply Icon

      "why not just run Ubuntu and put Windows in the virtual machine?"

      Because it likely works better to run Windows as the base OS and run Linux as a VM - Hyper-V generally outperforms open source Hypervisor options out of the box - and driver support and performance is usually better for Windows...

      3 7 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Running Linux on a laptop

        I've never had a problem running Linux on my laptops. The first was a Dell I bought in 2001, suspend/resume didn't work on it, but then it didn't work properly when I booted in Windows XP, either. In 2006 I bought a Toshiba, and suspend/resume kinda worked, but not reliably enough to use. I didn't boot Windows on it often enough to know if it had the flaky suspend/resume also. I got a Dell in 2011, and it everything worked perfectly it on it, I'd leave it booted for months and just close the lid. I just replaced it with an HP (17t with Kaby Lake if you're curious) and it works perfectly too.

        That's not to say there isn't a little futzing required. I can't remember what I had to do on the first couple, but I remember on the last Dell I had some wireless issues that took a little digging for unreleased patches to resolve, that were handled in the next kernel update a few months later. With the HP 17t I had a really weird problem where wireless simply didn't work, because there was an "acer-wmi" driver being loaded that thought it was wireless and overrode the real wireless. Took a few hours of google research before I tried something that realized that, then it was a simple matter of blacklisting that driver.

        I think the keys to my success are:

        1) don't buy ones with any weird or cutting edge hardware, like a built in fingerprint reader, and expect it to work

        2) Install the version of Fedora (or similar relatively cutting edge distro) released AFTER you buy the laptop, that way it will have a new enough kernel that it has all the drivers you need. If you run some sort of LTS type distro then you'll be too far behind and you'll have problems unless you buy last year's laptop on special

        3) get the model with the Intel GPU, not the discrete NVidia/ATI GPU - then you have to deal with either binary drivers or poorly maintained open source drivers

        4) get the model with the Intel wireless/bluetooth cards, not third party

        5 1 Reply
  2. oiseau
    Thumb Down

    Gut feeling

    Hello:

    I ran on MS-Windows OSs for many years, from DOS 6.0 onwards through 3.0, 3.11 and the various versions of W95/98/NT/2000/XP with the exception of Me, so I can say I've seen and had to wrestle with quite a bit from and about MS systems over the past 20+ years.

    Now I only run Linux on my three machines and when I eventually need to use some MS only software, I load it on a VirtualBox installed in one of them, obviously totally isolated from the web.

    Not being a specialist or a developer, a technical opinion I can back up and argue for is beyond me.

    But ...

    My gut feeling is that this is not something good for Linux or the Linux community, I have cannot shake off the idea that eventually and when we least expect it, it will roll back to bite us all from behind.

    And then it will probably be too late.

    But never mind.

    It's just my gut's $0.02.

    Cheers.

    22 3 Reply
    1. Robert Helpmann??
      Reply Icon
      Childcatcher

      Re: Gut feeling

      I am with oiseau on most of this. Penguin tools on MS boxes are nothing new (POSIX toolset and later the horrible PowerShell aliases, for example). If non-MS folks are working on this, then there is a chance it will work reasonably well. However, just from the multiple uses of the phrase "believe it or not" in the article, I am leaning toward the "not" side of things. I think MS SQL on Linux will probably be good for all involved, but much of this sounds like needlessly complicated solutions to problems that have been solved repeatedly (see other comments in this thread).

      1 2 Reply
    2. Baldy50
      Reply Icon

      Re: Gut feeling

      Started with 1.28 I think and you're probably too young to remember CFG files and G=C800:5 UPV BTW.

      0 1 Reply
    3. streaky
      Reply Icon

      Re: Gut feeling

      Gut away.

      It makes it easier for people like me who develop from the windows desktop for linux servers to use linux tooling. That's what it's mostly for and it doesn't hurt anybody any more than running a linux vm from windows does. Quibbling over it does nothing, it's happening and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

      Long term hope (but AFAIK not stated goal) is it improves both standards and interop at microsoft (people give them shit but they've been trying very hard for many years).

      FWIW the believe it or not stuff is because people think there's some war going on that actually ended like 20 years ago when Bill Gates bailed out Apple. I know enough senior people with Apple and Linux gear at Microsoft to know that the Haskell nerds perception of reality has no basis in it.

      1 0 Reply
  3. AMBxx Silver badge

    Who cares what the OS is!

    Logical progression is SQL on Azure. At that point, you really don't know what the underlying OS is. all that matters is the database tools and the authentication.

    Announcement feels like something that just won't matter soon enough.

    3 1 Reply
    1. Adam Connelly
      Reply Icon

      Re: Who cares what the OS is!

      SQL Server has been available as a service on Azure for years now. You don't need to worry about setting up machines, installing the server, etc. You basically just choose the level of performance you want, and create databases. It handles everything else. You can even get it to automatically scale your databases up and down to handle different load.

      But I'm guessing this must be aimed at a slightly different market, presumably because not everyone is comfortable running stuff in the cloud right now.

      3 0 Reply
      1. JimmyPage Silver badge
        Reply Icon
        Stop

        Re: not everyone is comfortable running stuff in the cloud right now

        More accurate to say not everyone understands the cloud right now.

        3 1 Reply
    2. Jonathan 27
      Reply Icon

      Re: Who cares what the OS is!

      Larger companies are going to want to run their own database servers regardless.

      4 0 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Larger companies are going to want to run their own database servers regardless.

        ... and their prices will start to reflect this.

        I have just left (in disgust) a major UK insurer whose *only* justification for not using "cloud" is that they have to justify the £thick-end-of-a-million they've spent on a data centre. Ostensibly for "data security" (although the fact they sacked their ISO when he wouldn't back that up speaks volumes).

        I did some quite thorough sums, and worked out you could easily halve the IT budget *and* have enterprise security and resilience at least as good as in-house.

        Instead, they'd rather hand out the P45s, having closed one office last year and eyeing another before Q4, as they've been told to shave 20% of costs (except IT infrastructure).

        Meanwhile competitors have been steadily reducing their costs and can reflect this in their pricing.

        AC *obviously*

        2 11 Reply
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Larger companies are going to want to run their own database servers regardless.

          " Ostensibly for "data security" (although the fact they sacked their ISO when he wouldn't back that up speaks volumes)."

          I'd have sacked the idiot too. The last thing ANY company with HIGHLY SENSITIVE data should do is bung it on some cloud infrastructure run by a 3rd party. I don't care how secure they say it is, we all know what cloud providers say and what they do don't always dovetail. Using cloud adds another layer of personel and infrastructure plus a VPN that can all potentially be compromised and if you think its safer than an in house system run by an experienced team then you're a fool.

          If I found out my insurance company (or bank) DID use 3rd party infrastructure to store my data they'd lose my custom PDQ.

          13 2 Reply
  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I don't get the target audience for this.

    If you have an application that requires SQL server, it will run on Windows so you have Windows infrastructure already.

    If you're writing a new application, you'd choose one suitable for your platform ( eg: web will be mysql or postgres ).

    For the other cases, why not just run it on Windows if you require it?

    5 1 Reply
    1. Chz
      Reply Icon

      Target audience is a company that's mostly Oracle on Linux and is so fed up with Oracle's shit that they're willing to try MS. At the moment, we have a few Windows servers about for running SQL but the admin team isn't really well-trained for Windows (and it seems silly to hire an MCSE to run a half dozen servers). Migrating that to RHEL (or whatever) would make things that much simpler.

      14 0 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Its silly to hire an MCSE at all.

        FIFY

        0 1 Reply
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Linux

      Actually we have a use case

      We have an existing customer deployed Java application that uses SQL Server heavily. I'd love to move the entire stack to Linux however we do need to do a good bit of work to port to Hibernate.

      SQL Server on Linux would allow us to test and deploy completely on Linux with little work.

      1 0 Reply
  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    why not just run Ubuntu and put Windows in the virtual machine? Part of me thinks this move was – in addition to a PR play – mostly aimed at Microsoft's own developers.

    I can't tell what MS exactly had in mind when they decided to add Linux support to Windows 10, but as a developer the only reason I have to support Windows is because we can hardly afford to tell our customers (who often don't even have IT staff) "sorry our product is Linux-only, you have to install a Linux server". For me, that means cross-platform code, quite a few headaches, and of course more development time.

    I have not tried Linux on Windows 10 yet but I can see the possible benefits: develop only for Linux, and run on both. I guess whether or not we end up working that way will mostly depend on the usability for the end-users but this is definitely worth exploring.

    3 2 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      "sorry our product is Linux-only, you have to install a Linux server"

      Why not? If they have no IT staff anything you use is probably alien to them.

      Also, couldn't you use the lice se savings as an argument to increase your support package?

      Sounds like poor business sense to me.

      I put out Linux based solutions all the time and because of the various savings elsewhere im able to offer better support (due to substantially more cash remaining in their company IT budget).

      In the rare event that I put out something Windows based, I only offer basic support because theres usually peanuts left in the budget for me to provide anything more.

      Ergo, businesses have a tendency to pick my Linux based stuff due to it being cheaper and better supported.

      Microsoft knows this which is why they're branching out. They've eroded engineer earnings for a long time with their extreme licensing model and now they're feeling us bite back.

      Businesses won't buy products that IT guys refuse to support. Support is the backbone of any tech setup.

      Those of us that build things cross platform know how to price things in our favour and we know which languages and technologies to use to make our products portable. Microsoft is simply trying to catch up as usual.

      The only instance in which I use MS products is if the client won't budge which is becoming very rare.

      On the server side, as long as what you build is accessible from the laptops / PCs the client wants to use and is backed up properly they don't care. Its YOU they expect to understand it not them. Thats what they pay you for.

      0 0 Reply
  6. Mage Silver badge
    Windows

    SQL vs Linux on Win

    Having option of MS SQL on Linux for people migrating to Linux servers from Windows is good.

    Unless you are forced by "management" why bother with Win10 at all to run Linux applications? Win 10 is the worst windows so far and even Linux Mint with Mate Desktop and WINE (Redmond Theme) runs more old windows apps than 64 bit win7! A VM with XP and no internet works fine on Linux.

    Linux update FAR more user friendly than Win7 / Win8 and especially Win10 nonsense.

    10 8 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: SQL vs Linux on Win

      >Win 10 is the worst windows so far

      Windows ME was worse.

      8 3 Reply
      1. Paul Crawford Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Windows ME was worse

        Tricky, we have:

        1) ME was a steaming pile of unreliable crap without any form of security or application isolation that mattered.

        2) Win10 whores you to advertisers and any three-letter agency who asks.

        18 5 Reply
        1. Jonathan 27
          Reply Icon

          Re: Windows ME was worse

          I predict you'll be running Windows 10, or a later version of Windows within 5 years and complaining about how bad the next version of Windows is. This is a repeating cycle.

          5 0 Reply
        2. TheVogon
          Reply Icon

          Re: Windows ME was worse

          "2) Win10 whores you to advertisers"

          Nope - it "whores" you to Microsoft - not so much to advertisers - that's Slurp's Chrome OS / browser you must be thinking of. The corporate versions of Windows 10 also have most of the telemetry disabled.

          "and any three-letter agency who asks."

          Just like all other corporate software / service vendors then...

          4 3 Reply
      2. Mage Silver badge
        Reply Icon
        Headmaster

        Re: Windows ME was worse

        I regarded Win9x and ME as game consoles. Never sold or installed them for business. We stuck with WFWG3.11 with Win32s till NT4.0 came out for workstations and NT3.x for servers.

        Win9x and ME were hardly more than GUI shells, not real OS like NT3.1, NT3.51, NT4.0 and Win2K, so I didn't include it. I agree, the Win98 SE was far superior to Win ME.

        5 3 Reply
        1. toughluck
          Reply Icon

          Re: Windows ME was worse

          I disagree that 98 SE was superior to Me. It was more or less equal. Windows Me was basically Windows 98 SE with all patches included, some extra bundled software and disabled DOS prompt (which could be restored). For me, it was more stable than 98 was.

          There are a few reasons why Me is so badly remembered:

          - It didn't fix any underlying issues with older consumer Windows versions, Microsoft was already focusing on marketing 2000 to desktop users and making XP

          - Windows 2000 was so far ahead of 98, Me and NT that people tend to compare everything to it

          - When XP was released, it instantly obsoleted everything

          1 1 Reply
          1. Updraft102
            Reply Icon

            Re: Windows ME was worse

            ME also booted faster than 98 SE and had the more customizable Win 2k-style Windows Explorer UI. It came on a laptop I bought all those years ago. It was never unstable or crashy for me. I liked it more than 98 SE too.

            0 0 Reply
          2. Hans 1
            Reply Icon
            Coat

            Re: Windows ME was worse

            >- When XP was released, it instantly obsoleted everything

            Yes, including hw that was, at the time, not even ready to ship ... a resource hog like Vista.

            1 2 Reply
          3. Mark Dempster
            Reply Icon

            Re: Windows ME was worse

            There was a lot of software that either didn't work on ME, or needed a lot of messing about to get working. I remember Sage Line 100 being something I had to do a lot of work with at the time, as well as the Swan ERP system that was based on it.

            Strangely it worked better on the NT-based kernels, although the users had to have local admin rights (same was true for a LOT of Windows software back then)

            0 0 Reply
            1. Boothy
              Reply Icon

              Re: Windows ME was worse

              I found that some of the 'Admin' rights issues could be fixed worked around by installing apps to a non standard folder, like C:/Apps rather than to 'Program Files' (which of course is a special location for Windows).

              Still works now for some legacy XP era apps running on newer Windows.

              Didn't work for everything of course though.

              0 0 Reply
            2. toughluck
              Reply Icon

              Re: a lot of software that didn't work on Me

              That software would typically fail to work in Windows 98 as well, as Me was not NT-based.

              Microsoft made developers aware in advance that DOS-based Windows will be abandoned and that all development should proceed on NT.

              Those that listened, moved to NT, and didn't give a hoot about supporting 9x in any meaningful manner.

              There is one thing that Microsoft screwed up totally with Millennium Edition. It was released half a year after Windows 2000, and a lot of people expected it would be newer and better and incorporating NT/2000 technology.

              Around late nineties, was Sage 100 actually supported on anything but NT?

              0 0 Reply
        2. Sandtitz Silver badge
          Reply Icon
          Boffin

          Re: Windows ME was worse

          "I regarded Win9x and ME as game consoles. Never sold or installed them for business."

          Clearly your clients didn't use laptops then. Win3.1 or NT4 had zero power saving features, they didn't support PCMCIA removals nor USB, and the driver selection for the laptop hardware was also rather poor. NT4 also required more resources (RAM) than Win9x.

          Many small companies opted for the less expensive Windows 9x purely because the usage was email, browsing and printing which works even in game consoles.

          Until Windows 2000 came around and laptops started to have >64 MB of mem your only reasonable PC laptop OS was Windows 9x, preferably that 98SE.

          2 0 Reply
          1. Diodelogic
            Reply Icon

            Re: Windows ME was worse

            "I regarded Win9x and ME as game consoles. Never sold or installed them for business."

            All I have to say about it is this: Back in the 90's I was a support tech for Windows at Microsoft, first-line support as it's called. I "graduated" to the Premier Support group after awhile, meaning that my team provided phone support for customers paying for it. Fortune 500 companies, smaller-but-still-quite-large companies, occasionally a rich person who was showing-off. I took thousands of calls from businesses. I supported Windows 95, 98, 98SE, and ME. All business, all the time. And I will just mention that the vast majority of calls were exactly the same kind as for free support, and most of the rest were just barely more challenging.

            0 0 Reply
    2. Cheesenough
      Reply Icon

      Re: SQL vs Linux on Win

      >Win 10 is the worst windows so far

      Worse than Vista?

      10 0 Reply
      1. Mage Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Worse than Vista

        Oh, yes especially as Win7 is a service pack for Vista and you could turn junk off in Vista. Also no-one was forced to "upgrade" to Vista from XP. It was easy to wait for the Vista SP, known as Win 7 (Windows NT 6.0 and 6.1?)

        8 4 Reply

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like