Windows XP - 9500 hours crash-free and counting

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Like Sun hardware? Or how about a MIPS processor?

How about the few thousand different hardware manufacturers on the x86 platform alone? Instead of "Apple G4 logic board" or "Apple G4 logic board" - my, the choices.

Mac OS X, all of it not just Darwin, will run on standard hardware. Standard being all parts conform to various standards. The only real non-standard part would be the equivilent of the chipset. So I can install Apple's OS on Apple's hardware, much like you can only install Dell's OEM OS on Dell hardware.

Any weight to this "OSX for PC in 2004" bit I keep hearing? I'd like to see how X would run on reasonably priced hardware. And the Dell OEM issue is to prevent piracy & theft ... apparently, there's phone-home code buried in there too somewhere. So if it's installed on a known stolen Dell, you get nailed.

Now, where's that link to the Dell 2.53 0wning the dual G4-1GHz in all the fancy Mac tests?

- M4H

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Alphazero
2000/XP = teh w00t!

Mac = teh suXorz!

Win2k/XP are not only setup in a piss poor manner, but their default installs leave a lot to be desired. Like functionality

How is that? It's sets up fine for me and has lots of nice features.

 

[notfred]

I can take all the time that my computer wasn't crashed, add it up, and say "150,000 hours crash free" too. It only matters if it's in a row. If your uptime is 9500 hours, that's noe thing, but if you're rebooting it every other day, then that doesn't say much. Even if you rebooted it w/o it crashing.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: joohang

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: joohang
I don't mind Macs, although I get pissed at the OS's usability.

You get pissed that out of the box it has more features and is more usable than a Windows based OS?

I didn't say features. I said USABILITY.

And yes, I get pissed. Lack of keyboard shortcuts and the single mouse button really cripples my performance. Taking a simple textbox as an example, I am so used to pushing home/end/ctrl+arrow, etc, which as far as my knowledge of Macs go, do not work on most control boxes. I get ticked when I have to hit the left arrow key 30 times when I am so used to just pushing the home key once.

The single mouse button is not a problem. Get a new mouse or use the keyboard's ctrl key with the mouse to get the right click effect.

The mouse can handle most of the navigation problems you describe, so its not a huge deal.

As far as usability goes, 2k/XP dont have it for me without installing a half dozen extras and thats after the 30 reboots worth of patches

 

[GoodToGo]

The best OS out there right now is Win98. Matter closed, Xp and 2000 dont even come close to the funtionality and the stability of 98. It never NEVER crashed on me.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: aphexII

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: aphexII
Ive used plenty of mac's and ji can tell youj without a doubt, tjhey are NOT crash free.

Anyone whjo says so it lying throughj their theetjh.

Mac OS X has progressed steadily since its release. 10.1.5 is what I am using, and I have no stability problems with the OS.

My girlfriends mom has a new iMAC (purchased sometimje this sujmmer) and it crashes at least once a month.

Dont get me wrong, i still wanjt one. Its just not any more stable than XP.

I never claimed it was better than XP's stability. Depending on when she purchased it, she could have gotten 10.1 which is not the latest. Also, a lot of the stability problems could be attributed to the user.

 

[joohang]

The mouse can handle most of the navigation problems you describe, so its not a huge deal.

It is to me.

Just to clean out the excess quote above, I hit Ctrl+Shift+Home out of habit. When using a Mac with keyboard, I feel like I'm using telnet.

As far as usability goes, 2k/XP dont have it for me without installing a half dozen extras and thats after the 30 reboots worth of patches

That's true.

But then I am yet to see a System Update CRASHING the whole damn machine. I recently fixed a Mac at work because the thing just went to a mysterious halt during a system update. WTF? I was told that all the person did was going to some sort of online update thingy (I'm guessing it's Apple's equivalent to Windows Update).

Funny, though, because the solution was to power cycle the machine to clean out some memory thingy and the system worked again as it was before the update.

 

[pecel]

Any screenshots?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Like Sun hardware? Or how about a MIPS processor?

How about the few thousand different hardware manufacturers on the x86 platform alone? Instead of "Apple G4 logic board" or "Apple G4 logic board" - my, the choices.

And how many threads are out there on the quality of drivers? Choices are a double edged sword. Choices are definitely good, thats why I dont restrict myself to one architecture (I run sparc4m, sparc4u, x86, and ppc at the moment with possibilities of alpha very soon). Quality, not quantity

Mac OS X, all of it not just Darwin, will run on standard hardware. Standard being all parts conform to various standards. The only real non-standard part would be the equivilent of the chipset. So I can install Apple's OS on Apple's hardware, much like you can only install Dell's OEM OS on Dell hardware.

Any weight to this "OSX for PC in 2004" bit I keep hearing?

You mean x86 right? But anyways, probably not. If Apple did make the mistake of moving to the x86 architecture they would produce their own chipsets which would limit your choices of manufacturers to, yet again, Apple. Its the only sane way for them to do this.

I'd like to see how X would run on reasonably priced hardware.

Pick up an iBook.

And the Dell OEM issue is to prevent piracy & theft ... apparently, there's phone-home code buried in there too somewhere. So if it's installed on a known stolen Dell, you get nailed.

Apple is primarily a hardware company and can therefor not worry about piracy. That is how they can get away with selling 5pack licenses to Mac OS X for about $200USD instead of charging $200/license like another company I love to hate. Plus you do not have to worry about this phone home, activation, if you install too many times call us crap.

Now, where's that link to the Dell 2.53 0wning the dual G4-1GHz in all the fancy Mac tests?

- M4H

Benchmarks are like statistics. They mean very little when you have work to do.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Alphazero
2000/XP = teh w00t!

Mac = teh suXorz!

Win2k/XP are not only setup in a piss poor manner, but their default installs leave a lot to be desired. Like functionality

How is that? It's sets up fine for me and has lots of nice features.

Security is lacking, cross platform scripting languages are missing, artificial limits are built into various serving programs, the compiler is missing, an ssh client is missing...

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: joohang

The mouse can handle most of the navigation problems you describe, so its not a huge deal.

It is to me.

Just to clean out the excess quote above, I hit Ctrl+Shift+Home out of habit. When using a Mac with keyboard, I feel like I'm using telnet.

Sounds like an inability on the user's part to adjust to his computing environment

As far as usability goes, 2k/XP dont have it for me without installing a half dozen extras and thats after the 30 reboots worth of patches

That's true.

But then I am yet to see a System Update CRASHING the whole damn machine. I recently fixed a Mac at work because the thing just went to a mysterious halt during a system update. WTF? I was told that all the person did was going to some sort of online update thingy (I'm guessing it's Apple's equivalent to Windows Update).

Funny, though, because the solution was to power cycle the machine to clean out some memory thingy and the system worked again as it was before the update.

I have had problems with the software update program too, but it was always my fault. Ive had more problems updating ie on Windows than anything else though.

 

[gopunk]

i've said this ever since i started using 2000... anybody that talks about how windows crashes all the time is an idiot.

 

[amdskip]

My duron 750 server has been up 24/7 for 30 days without a reboot running seti. It's still going strong too and I'm not gonna stop it

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: gopunk
i've said this ever since i started using 2000... anybody that talks about how windows crashes all the time is an idiot.

Agreed. Either an idiot for being uneducated on how to keep the system stable, or an idiot for purchasing crappy hardware.

 

[bizmark]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer
My XP is unstable. Programs crash, explorer crashes. Ay mio!

sure, your programs crash and explorer crashes, but XP itself doesn't. You can re-start Explorer and be right back on your way. Your whole computer isn't frozen. You don't have to reboot.

 

[Anubis]

we have the new imacs in our physics lab. like 30 in the 2 labs. and i can say that on average they crash EVERY DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
win2K which i run in my room OTOH nasent crashed in 3 weeks. and teh onl time it does crash is when i do something stupid like try and OC teh crap out of something

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: gopunk
i've said this ever since i started using 2000... anybody that talks about how windows crashes all the time is an idiot.

Agreed. Either an idiot for being uneducated on how to keep the system stable, or an idiot for purchasing crappy hardware.

pretty much... that, and an idiot for making such statements without ever having used xp

 

[Derango]

Originally posted by: GoodToGo
The best OS out there right now is Win98. Matter closed, Xp and 2000 dont even come close to the funtionality and the stability of 98. It never NEVER crashed on me.

Uh....this is a joke right?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: TheEvil1
we have the new imacs in our physics lab. like 30 in the 2 labs. and i can say that on average they crash EVERY DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
win2K which i run in my room OTOH nasent crashed in 3 weeks. and teh onl time it does crash is when i do something stupid like try and OC teh crap out of something

Sounds like poor administration. Mac OS X can easily be stable for months at a time. I leave my laptop on 24/7 (with the occassional reboot) and get month long uptimes without problems.

 

[LakAttack]

I switched jobs and went from Win98se to Win2k. On 98 I crashed at least 2 times a day, and on 2k, I haven't crashed in almost four months.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: GoodToGo
The best OS out there right now is Win98. Matter closed, Xp and 2000 dont even come close to the funtionality and the stability of 98. It never NEVER crashed on me.

do you ever turn your computer on?

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: TheEvil1
we have the new imacs in our physics lab. like 30 in the 2 labs. and i can say that on average they crash EVERY DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
win2K which i run in my room OTOH nasent crashed in 3 weeks. and teh onl time it does crash is when i do something stupid like try and OC teh crap out of something

Sounds like poor administration. Mac OS X can easily be stable for months at a time. I leave my laptop on 24/7 (with the occassional reboot) and get month long uptimes without problems.

we dont use OSX
its OS9.something

this is because a lot of teh softwhere we use. some of which we developed dosent work for OSX yet

 

[Heisenberg]

Anymore, OSX and 2k/XP are both very stable as desktop OS's. With proper administration, there's probably little difference. Now as a server OS, that's a different matter. I'm not sure I would trust either one for that (although I don't have a lot of info on OSX for server use).

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: TheEvil1

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: TheEvil1
we have the new imacs in our physics lab. like 30 in the 2 labs. and i can say that on average they crash EVERY DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
win2K which i run in my room OTOH nasent crashed in 3 weeks. and teh onl time it does crash is when i do something stupid like try and OC teh crap out of something

Sounds like poor administration. Mac OS X can easily be stable for months at a time. I leave my laptop on 24/7 (with the occassional reboot) and get month long uptimes without problems.

we dont use OSX
its OS9.something

this is because a lot of teh softwhere we use. some of which we developed dosent work for OSX yet

Then comparre it to Win9x, not 2k.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
Anymore, OSX and 2k/XP are both very stable as desktop OS's. With proper administration, there's probably little difference. Now as a server OS, that's a different matter. I'm not sure I would trust either one for that (although I don't have a lot of info on OSX for server use).

Personally I would limit the server use for either OS. Neither are quite mature enough.