🚀 go-pugleaf

Mark Decker (madecker@lorien.creol.ucf.edu) wrote:
: In article <314523CE.5A79@mts.se>, Martin Nisshagen <martin@mts.se> wrote:
: >>Stability of NT? I have under one and a half year *never* had even a single
: >crash or lockup of it. In that time I did have one total crash of a Solaris 
: >machine. I would say that NT is as stable as VMS is.

Not in my experiences. In the last 6 months of using NT server 3.51, I've 
had two occurances of it just going out to lunch. It doesn't fault or 
anything, but all applications quite responding. The machine has been on 
for this amount of time, and has been about two months since the last 
lockup, so all in all, it's quite stable in the grand scheme of thing. I 
run lots of Win 3.1 apps and a TCP and IPX stack, a web server, and a 
file server as well as my desktop PC.

: >Anyway VMS, NT, Unix, OS/2, Win95 has much better stability than any version
: >of your MacOS. NO doubt about that.
: VMS  : Yes
: Win95: ARE YOU KIDDING!!!???
: If you run a clean System (minimal shareware extensions), the MacOS is
: pretty stable (some OS versions more than others).

I've had more random lockups with older Macs than any PC running any 
version of Windows or DOS. And I use PCs about 100:1 over Macs.

: The MacOS is not as stable as NT or Unix,... but Win95 crashes ALL THE
: TIME (much like a Mac can do if people go crazy with inits).  But to say

Uh... I would dispute this. Win 95 does have its fits, but ALL THE 
TIME?!?! My Win 95 box serves files, web pages, runs my DOS apps and all 
the protected mode games, and gives me fits about once every three or 
four weeks.

-->Neil

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Synthcom System's homepage:                         http://www.synthcom.com/
Europa Upgrade, Synth patches (D-50, Xpander/Matrix 12), used gear pricelist