> > They're good, yes. They're better than Win98. > > Uh, yeah, like about a BILLION times better.
I've seen uptimes of an hour on Win98, but I haven't seen uptimes of a billion hours on Win2K. > > But they're not > > bulletproof. > > Right. No OS is. a.) What's your point? We're talking about relative stability here. b.) Some OSs are bulletproof, they're just not grenade-proof. > > I've seen win2k web servers go belly-up several times a > > day. > > The whole machine? You've seen a pretty poorly setup webserver then, or > one with hardware problems. In several cases I've seen the same hardware running linux with uptimes of months, but running Win2K crashing within hours. If that's a hardware problem, it's because Win2K puts too much hardware-critical stuff in the kernel (although the same might be said to be becoming true of linux). If it's a poorly-configured webserver... remind me how a webserver can bring down a machine again? If Microsoft have been putting hooks for IIS in the kernel for performance reasons, I call that an OS problem. > > The OS in this instance remains undisclosed beyond "win32" > > Ok, so it's probably Win98 or something. The OS in this instance remains undisclosed beyond "win32". > > > Don't try to blame Mozilla's defects on Windows Gerv. > > > > I didn't see Gerv make any such accusation. He _implied_ that using > > win32 in a 24/7 environment was unwise. That's a point that can be > > argued to death over in > > alt.windows.sucks.no.linux.is.overrated.is.not.is.too.etc.etc.etc by > > those who wish to do so, but isn't really on topic here. > > Hey, Gerv brought it up. I was simply correcting his misstatement. The biggest misstatement I've seen on this thread is one to the effect that Gerv was trying to blame Mozilla's defects on Windows. At least the other statements are all based on people's experience. Hamish.
