No. Any OS that runs almost completely unused will be incredibly stable, even if its 9.x.... It just wont go past 49 days. Windows NT, 2000, XP, and 2003 are just as stable on a server as linux is. If the OS isnt used, then the OS stays stable. Therefore, saying that an unused server is oh so stable doesnt mean anything, because everyone knows that as long as the OS doesnt get use, it stays stable.
Did you hear about the bug in the system the FAA runs in the control towers? They have to restart the system once every 30 days, and some tech forgot to do it, or it wasn't done or something, and then their systems crashed and a ton of flights were delayed in LAX, I think. They use the same system in 20 or so control towers. They are supposedly going to release and update next month.
The myth that Linux is more stable than NT is just that -- a myth.
When it comes to desktop systems, Linux definitely isn't as stable -- I've had KDE crash, I've had X crash on fresh, 5-minute-just-installed Redhats and the like. On servers, it's about the same. Some kernels are unstable, just like some releases of Windows aren't that stable (2000 with no SPs, for instance).
Yes, Tom, Ive seen KDE crash several times too, and I VERY rarely see explorer.exe crash, or NT kernel related crashes. Even 2000 with no service packs is stabler than 98.
There, I have added SigX to my, and Mr. Clean's signatures, that way you can see how stable our XPs really are. Mr. Clean has no service packs, and I have SP2. Im going to get SP2 on this now.
No. Any OS that runs almost completely unused will be incredibly stable, even if its 9.x.... It just wont go past 49 days. Windows NT, 2000, XP, and 2003 are just as stable on a server as linux is. If the OS isnt used, then the OS stays stable. Therefore, saying that an unused server is oh so stable doesnt mean anything, because everyone knows that as long as the OS doesnt get use, it stays stable.
wow! Fishnet compared linux 2 windows...! nice try...
Wow, I just come to this forum for the first time and I see so many XP haters.
Well, Why do you hate XP but not 2003? 2003 take more space to install, more RAM (well, not really) and it's looks just like XP in classic mode. Whats the difference.
Server 2003 has a tweaked kernel (it DID come out like ... a year, if not more, than XP?), has been recompiled with the new Visual C .NET compiler with the /GS flag (buffer overflow protection), has less crap running by default, is somewhat more stable, and definitely feels snappier.
Wow I start a post and it reaches over 100 replys. (bounce)
Windows 2003 is the next thing i want to try as as what has been said before the kernel is one year newer than windows xp so should be even more stable that its predecessor.
Comments
-Q
When it comes to desktop systems, Linux definitely isn't as stable -- I've had KDE crash, I've had X crash on fresh, 5-minute-just-installed Redhats and the like. On servers, it's about the same. Some kernels are unstable, just like some releases of Windows aren't that stable (2000 with no SPs, for instance).
Yes, Tom, Ive seen KDE crash several times too, and I VERY rarely see explorer.exe crash, or NT kernel related crashes. Even 2000 with no service packs is stabler than 98.
-FishNET
I saw it on a TV news show.
-Q
-Q
-Q
But not any other version
Well, Why do you hate XP but not 2003? 2003 take more space to install, more RAM (well, not really) and it's looks just like XP in classic mode. Whats the difference.
2003 also has WMP, OE and IE. So does XP.
Why is 2003 better may I ask?
-Q
2003 is really close to XP interface wise if you put XP in classic mode. Hell, 2003 can go in the XP style.
But can someone tell me why 2003 is better than XP? I feel that I'm missing something. I run both OS's and I don't think either is better.
-Q
-Q
and it claiming minimum 1.5GB hdd is a load of crap, im using 1GB
and boy is it responsive! lol
Windows 2003 is the next thing i want to try as as what has been said before the kernel is one year newer than windows xp so should be even more stable that its predecessor.
Richard