X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 09:24:24 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Charles Sandmann cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: WinXP and DJGPP.... In-Reply-To: <3c708f3f.sandmann@clio.rice.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Charles Sandmann wrote: > If you are tired of the reboot of > the hour - and want to be able to run for weeks or months on end without > rebooting or losing data, XP runs circles around any Win 9x based kernel. If we are starting a stability contest, then here's another data point: my Windows 98SE system reports an uptime of 41:21:05:49 (yes, that's almost 42 days). The previous record was 3 months of uptime, before a power outage interfered. Power outages are by far the only reason this system ever goes down. My other Windows 98 system is tirtured by my kids with all kinds of buggy games, but it still stays up for many days on end, and is stable enough for me to use it to read email and news groups. Evidently, Windows 9X's fragility is greatly exaggerated. It does take a bit of setup and vigilance, but so does any other OS out there. It goes without saying that a descendant of the NT family is more stable than the 9X family. They don't need to maintain compatibility to DOS and to 16-bit Windows of the 3.X vintage, so they have less problems. But beyond this simple technical fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that the MS hype about XP stability is largely a marketing gimmick. In particular, I have no doubt that in a year or so, we will be told by MS that XP is crap while the next OS, whatever its name will be, is superb as far as stability goes...