Subject:
|
OS Stability concerns (from/was RE: Vision Command)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 12 May 2003 18:24:04 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Rob Limbaugh <RLimbaugh@greenfieldgroup.com^avoidspam^>
|
Viewed:
|
748 times
|
| |
|
|
Fact is, it doesn't matter what type of computer someone has or the OS
on it if hardware and associated resources are not configured properly
or if hardware is faulty. I've yet to fix a computer where the problem
could be attributed to a "bad OS".
The OS crashes because something isn't right within the machine or
because the user did something to aggravate an already present problem
(for example, having a computer with 32MB of RAM, 25MB of free space,
and tries to scan in an 8.5x11 document at 2400dpi).
In my experience, I see the following breakdown:
About 85% user initiated--running unknown applications, disabling virus
scanners, downloading "cracked" software, installing spyware, "deleting"
files instead of "uninstalling", buying a new sound card and trying to
put it in without any knowledge of hardware concepts, etc. This
includes users attempting to upgrade OS platforms without verifying and
correcting any possible hardware device contentions.
About 10% for improper/lack-of maintenance--nobody opens their cases to
blow out the dust clogging the CPU and power supply fans (even when
installing the new sound card...)
About 5% hardware failure (including spilled coffee) or problems that
manifest "out of the blue". Most of that is caused by lack of adequate
surge suppression (most people only protect power lines, not data
lines).
If that was useful information to anyone, then great... If not, then my
apologies.
- Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: Purple Dave [mailto:purpledave@maskofdestiny.com]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 12:18 PM
To: lego-robotics@crynwr.com
Subject: Re: Vision Command
In lugnet.robotics, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> 98SE least buggy? Yeah right.
In my experience, yes, it is.
> I use XP and it blows the pants of Windows 9X/ME when it comes to
> stability and bugginess and etc.
All I can say is that I've had 98SE running for over two years
without a reinstall on my home machine (which gets used quite heavily),
and it's only recently been showing any problems (which I can attribute
to the fact that I managed to bump into a virus that none of the AV
software companies had found out about at that time). Two of the
computers at work, however, were running ME, and they would regularly
(as in 2-3 times each week) run out of enough memory to _shut_down_.
The decision was made to upgrade to XP on those machines, but then it
was discovered that, even though they were at most 2 years old, they
couldn't handle the gigantomassive "minimum" requirements that XP drags
along as baggage. And even with mandatory upgrades they still have
problems that are worse than pretty much any of the 98SE machines in the
office. I've also come across evidence that shows it has some
ridiculously stupid security flaws in the default setup, that were
_reintroduced_, even though all of the previous Windows OS systems had
defaulted them off. So, like I said, _in_my_experience_, 98SE is still
the least buggy. And until I personally see proof to the contrary, I
will never upgrade my OS. I'll reinstall it when I get a chance, but
it'll be the same as what I've got right now.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: OS Stability concerns (from/was RE: Vision Command)
|
| (...) Yeah? Aside from saying the words "Floating Point Math", here's an odd problem for you (and one of the primary reasons we upgraded from ME to XP on those two machines). Our office had one server/computer running NT, and a network consisting of (...) (21 years ago, 13-May-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
