How stable is Win2K compared to Linux? I know it's much better than Win98 but can it hold a candle to Linux? Thanks. 
Win2K vs. Linux for stability
- Thread starter Muerto
- Start date
IMHO, and I've never admined a Win2K box, but...I believe that any platform's stability is, all other things equal, directly proportional to the ability of the administrator.
I've been using Win2k and Linux about the same amount of time now (since July 1999). In that time, I have actually "crashed" Win2k twice (playing Half-Life) and also crashed Linux twice. I must say, I was pushing Win2k much harder than my Linux box at the time of the crashes.
i agree with sunner. for a server...linux all the way. its kernel is just way better for multitasking jobs like serving. as an individual workstation, i wouldnt say either one is more stable.
I was determined to get rid of W98 and install Linux for its stability. Instead, I installed W2K because it came out at the same time I bought Linux MAndrake 7.0.
I am well pleased with W2k and no longer have the same desire and need to install and learn another os.
No more daily crashes. No more weekly crashes.
Probably will try Linux as I still have a 4G partition waiting for it. But no drivers for my Winmodem. ADSL?
I have used both and crashed both. Linux, when well maintained and well setup is virtually crash proof. I like to play around with kernel driver code so I have been able to take it down but I assure you it was all my fault Many people also crash it when compiling in new kernels (I am guilty of this too) because they throw in options that won't work with there hardware. I see linux to windows like c to java. Linux, like C, has no hand holding but is very powerful and is usually considered to be the guru's choice. Windows is like java, it has a lot of hand holding and won't let you shoot yourself in the foot as easily but it runs a little bit slower and lacks some of the options and power, or at least it doesn't let you get to as low a level (and actually manipulate the pointers it is using and such).
Win2k seams like a great stable workstation environment, probably better as a workstation then linux for now because of mainstream software packages. I still perfer linux as a server because it doesn't have any GUI overhead like Windows does and it seams to run "faster" and handle more users. I also think the remote administration of a linux box (or any other unix based os) is second to none. As long as you have a good administrator, I believe both can be very secure against hacking also, though I don't know much about how Windows uses advanced security features.
Many people also crash it when compiling in new kernels (I am guilty of this too) because they throw in options that won't work with there hardware. I see linux to windows like c to java. Linux, like C, has no hand holding but is very powerful and is usually considered to be the guru's choice. Windows is like java, it has a lot of hand holding and won't let you shoot yourself in the foot as easily but it runs a little bit slower and lacks some of the options and power, or at least it doesn't let you get to as low a level (and actually manipulate the pointers it is using and such).Win2k seams like a great stable workstation environment, probably better as a workstation then linux for now because of mainstream software packages. I still perfer linux as a server because it doesn't have any GUI overhead like Windows does and it seams to run "faster" and handle more users. I also think the remote administration of a linux box (or any other unix based os) is second to none. As long as you have a good administrator, I believe both can be very secure against hacking also, though I don't know much about how Windows uses advanced security features.
Damaged, I've actually never crashed a Linux box even when playing around with that.
Impressed eh?
Impressed eh?
I use both daily and before I upgraded to RH 7.0, Linux was the most stable of the two. Now, however, win2k is the more stable. This will probably change when 7.1 comes out though.
Netscape brings down my Linux box quite often. I think I will try Opera 5; I hear it is quite stable and has a small footprint.... On the stability issue, I like being able to telnet in to my frozen Linux machine and kill -9 the process that is causing the problem. This has worked the times the machine has frozen from Netscape mostly. I also had problems with certain maps in Unreal Tourn. that would completely lockup the machine, no alternate terminals (alt-Fx) would pull up for me to log in.
Sunner,
I was giving shux a hard time because he said he never had to reboot a Linux box. All I was eluding to was that if you recompile a new kernel you have to reboot the box to load the new kernel.
Well, that's what I was trying for at least.
I was giving shux a hard time because he said he never had to reboot a Linux box. All I was eluding to was that if you recompile a new kernel you have to reboot the box to load the new kernel.
Well, that's what I was trying for at least.
No offence Agamar, but RedHat's stability has absolutely nothing to do with "linux's stability" in any way, shape, or form. The problem with RedHat and Mandrake is simple, they just pile on way to much useless crap on to there distributions. Even the base RedHat and Mandrake tools are bloated. Some people argue that it needs to be that way to get the average computer user to use linux but that is also where Windows gets a lot of it's faults from. So to end my rant....if you don't want to have to continually wait for upgrades from RedHat or Mandrake take a shot at Slackware, keep up with the major kernel revisions (the ones released at kernel.org...not and special RedHat or Mandrake versions), and you will be all set.
), and you will be all set.Umm, I'd have to plug Debian on this one. Though an experienced user can get a good bare minimum install done with both RedHat and Mandrake, but...it's a lot of work to do that. Kind of disappointing in that sense. However as jtshaw so aptly notes those distros are aimed much more at the desktop than the server end.
Umm, netscape doesn't crash linux, it crashes X. X != linux. I doubt very many of you could crash linux on the command line without an rm -fS /.
Again, just because something in X crashes, doesn't mean you have lost the kernel. Try a cntrl-alt-backspace nextime you have problems in X. That and get out of runlevel 5 and into runlevel 3 where you belong.
Again, just because something in X crashes, doesn't mean you have lost the kernel. Try a cntrl-alt-backspace nextime you have problems in X. That and get out of runlevel 5 and into runlevel 3 where you belong.
Heh, I should send you some of my attempts to alter the DXR3/HW+ DVD decoder drivers for linux... They are not aimed at X, the way they work is you cat an mpeg at the device and it is suppose to display it over TV-Out...however my fixes didn't work so well and the kernel got a little upset So ya, I crashed linux on the command line, but no, it certainly wasn't a fault in Linux...there is just some device polling you can't do
So ya, I crashed linux on the command line, but no, it certainly wasn't a fault in Linux...there is just some device polling you can't doYeah, I've done messing around with the I2C stuff and with, of all things, the lmsensors crap. That last one really pissed me off. However, it wasn't like the README didn't warn me about that.
I had a Linux box running without a reboot as a web/file server for over 300 days before the HD died on it. I had a load average of over 1024 (it rolls over after that. Forkbombing with dnetc is fun ), and I've had over 250 users logged into it as a stress test.
I've had Windows 2000 bluescreen when opening notepad on the same system (with a new HD).
), and I've had over 250 users logged into it as a stress test.I've had Windows 2000 bluescreen when opening notepad on the same system (with a new HD).
IMHO Win2k is the most bloated of those two OS's. Especially the forced GUI of Win2k makes this OS much more unstable than Linux.
And well, who cares about which OS is more stable if you've ever experienced Netscape under Linux when you've a cable-connection? I don't... I've never experienced under Windows that NS loaded within four seconds and that rendering the next page took less than 0.5 seconds...
I've never crashed Linux (SuSe 6.3) on my PC, while Win2k has shown me multiple blue screens and sudden reboots and more 'fun-stuff'.
And well, who cares about which OS is more stable if you've ever experienced Netscape under Linux when you've a cable-connection? I don't... I've never experienced under Windows that NS loaded within four seconds and that rendering the next page took less than 0.5 seconds...
I've never crashed Linux (SuSe 6.3) on my PC, while Win2k has shown me multiple blue screens and sudden reboots and more 'fun-stuff'.
other than the time my sister blew the circuit breaker, my win2k server's been up since the first week of august.... wait... I rebooted sept 1.
& i think the power thing happened in the middle of september. Other than that this thing is VERY stable. much more so than NT4.0 server.
for serving applications, I don't think that there's a huge gap performance wise. I think that most of it depends on the admin, and quite a bit on the hardware as well.
It is wuite the phenomenon that i outlast all of my *nix friends in uptime...
I don't know. if i was to run a webserver i'd probably run BSD.... but thats personal preference. heh.
& i think the power thing happened in the middle of september. Other than that this thing is VERY stable. much more so than NT4.0 server.
for serving applications, I don't think that there's a huge gap performance wise. I think that most of it depends on the admin, and quite a bit on the hardware as well.
It is wuite the phenomenon that i outlast all of my *nix friends in uptime...
I don't know. if i was to run a webserver i'd probably run BSD.... but thats personal preference. heh.
the two big questions are:
How much do you know?
How much work are you willing to do to learn new things?
if "not much" is the answer either or both of those questions, win2k is a great solution. i've had my win2k machine up as a ftp and web server for over 55 days now withut a hiccup. some significant things with that are this is only a p200 machine with 128 megs of ram, and that i am not a very expereinced administrator (if i could even be called that) the only reason why i rebooted it last time was to put 64 megs of ram in it to bring it to 128. before that it had been up for like 3 weeks. win2k is an extremely stable, and relatively easy to use OS.
so consider this my plug for win2k.
i know linux is in many ways superior, but i just dont have the time, and more improtantly the motivation to learn a completely new OS. i've been playing around with madrake on a p166 box, but i couldnt say i know much of anything that is useful yet.
How much do you know?
How much work are you willing to do to learn new things?
if "not much" is the answer either or both of those questions, win2k is a great solution. i've had my win2k machine up as a ftp and web server for over 55 days now withut a hiccup. some significant things with that are this is only a p200 machine with 128 megs of ram, and that i am not a very expereinced administrator (if i could even be called that) the only reason why i rebooted it last time was to put 64 megs of ram in it to bring it to 128. before that it had been up for like 3 weeks. win2k is an extremely stable, and relatively easy to use OS.
so consider this my plug for win2k.
i know linux is in many ways superior, but i just dont have the time, and more improtantly the motivation to learn a completely new OS. i've been playing around with madrake on a p166 box, but i couldnt say i know much of anything that is useful yet.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter