LeaflameSD

Why you should avoid buying Windows 8

150 posts in this topic

The point is the actual AMOUNT of uptime.

I have some NT 4.00 and 2K running 24/7 since 2002 or 2003 only switched off/rebooted a few times to replace disks and/or PSU's, that is some "uptime", not 26 days, uptime starts to be of *some* relevance when you start counting it in years.... :whistle: and of course a lot of things depend on the actual usage the machine has.

I think that Phenomic was making the point that his Linux system is less crash-prone than Windows is perceived to be. Why, I have a brand-new Windows 7 machine, and got my first BSOD one day into owning it when I tried to install the graphics card driver offered by Windows Update.

--JorgeA

Ha that's what you get! Device drivers from Windows Update. :no:

The reliability of a computer is solely dependent on how it is used. I've always wondered why people use the uptime as some sort of no-contest value in the OS debate. In the end, no OS is better than another in a general use standpoint so there is no reason to even have a debate. I see someone say Linux has uptime of 26 days, but this means nothing to me. I ran a Shoutcast/Quake 3 "server" on a Windows 98 PC that had uptimes of about 3 months before reboots that were needed. And even the workstation I am using right this second (Windows 7) has a current uptime of 1035:14:42 or 43 days. :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is the actual AMOUNT of uptime.

I have some NT 4.00 and 2K running 24/7 since 2002 or 2003 only switched off/rebooted a few times to replace disks and/or PSU's, that is some "uptime", not 26 days, uptime starts to be of *some* relevance when you start counting it in years.... :whistle: and of course a lot of things depend on the actual usage the machine has.

I think that Phenomic was making the point that his Linux system is less crash-prone than Windows is perceived to be. Why, I have a brand-new Windows 7 machine, and got my first BSOD one day into owning it when I tried to install the graphics card driver offered by Windows Update.

--JorgeA

Thank you, yes that's what I meant, my new Mint OS has not BSODed or required a reboot during the first month. And for whatever Windows apps I need I'm running a Windows virtual machine as a guest OS with VirtualBox. With 16 GB memory you can easily run 4-5 OSes simultaneously.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try Linux Mint 13 MATE, has classic start button & customizable taskbar. My current uptime is 26 days and no more Windows BSODs.

I've said that if Microsoft doesn't make it so that I can avoid their Metro thing altogether, then when Windows 7 support runs out my screen will start looking like this.

--JorgeA

What distro is that? Mint MATE 14 was just released, has latest kernel to support Intel z77 platform. Here's my old Ubuntu, with only 8 GB memory, can run simultaneously Windows 2000, Windows 7 and Windows 8 Developer Preview.

Screenshot_50P.png

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, yes that's what I meant, my new Mint OS has not BSODed or required a reboot during the first month.

And we all got what you meant :thumbup , the only difference being the stance on this objective piece of info:

  1. Tripredacus thinks that measuring uptime and using it to make a point, *any* point about "good" or "bad" OS is meaningless metrics
  2. jaclaz thinks that while it is generally speaking meaningless metrics, the actual amount of uptime used in the given example is so trifling small that even IF uptime actually had some meanings, 26 days of it mean nothing anyway
  3. jorgeA thinks that uptime is meaningful and - in order to prove it - compares the meanigless 26 days of your Linux with his meaningless 1 day uptime experience with 7

BTW, anyone with enough hardware power can run multiple Operating Systems in multiple Virtual Machines, if you want something more "real" (in order to make a comparison) get CoLinux ;):

http://www.colinux.org/

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, yes that's what I meant, my new Mint OS has not BSODed or required a reboot during the first month.

And we all got what you meant :thumbup , the only difference being the stance on this objective piece of info:

  1. Tripredacus thinks that measuring uptime and using it to make a point, *any* point about "good" or "bad" OS is meaningless metrics
  2. jaclaz thinks that while it is generally speaking meaningless metrics, the actual amount of uptime used in the given example is so trifling small that even IF uptime actually had some meanings, 26 days of it mean nothing anyway
  3. jorgeA thinks that uptime is meaningful and - in order to prove it - compares the meanigless 26 days of your Linux with his meaningless 1 day uptime experience with 7

BTW, anyone with enough hardware power can run multiple Operating Systems in multiple Virtual Machines, if you want something more "real" (in order to make a comparison) get CoLinux ;):

http://www.colinux.org/

jaclaz

My best uptime is Windows 2000, it runs for months and only goes down when there is a power outage.

I only mentioned uptime because when I installed Windows 7 on the same hardware it BSODed regularly coming out of suspend S3. More importantly VirtualBox was crashing and W7 put in "compatibility mode". So I deleted W7 and installed Mint 13, which has never crashed so far, and VirtualBox runs better under Linux than it does in Windows (probably by design).

So here is Mint 13 on my 2nd machine running Windows 7 and 2000, everything is in Windows Classic Look. ;) Uptime as you can see on the right-side window: 7 days, 23 hrs

Screenshot-Mint13.png

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My best uptime is Windows 2000, it runs for months and only goes down when there is a power outage.

And, again:

The point is the actual AMOUNT of uptime.

I have some NT 4.00 and 2K running 24/7 since 2002 or 2003 only switched off/rebooted a few times to replace disks and/or PSU's, that is some "uptime", ....

.... and since they run connected to an UPS and there is a backup Power Generator serving the building, these machines were NOT ever switched off in case of power outage (only for actual hardware faults or intentionally for due maintenance/cleaning).

kids today, just kids having fun ;)...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090555/quotes?qt=qt0298600

:lol:

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My best uptime is Windows 2000, it runs for months and only goes down when there is a power outage.

And, again:

The point is the actual AMOUNT of uptime.

I have some NT 4.00 and 2K running 24/7 since 2002 or 2003 only switched off/rebooted a few times to replace disks and/or PSU's, that is some "uptime", ....

.... and since they run connected to an UPS and there is a backup Power Generator serving the building, these machines were NOT ever switched off in case of power outage (only for actual hardware faults or intentionally for due maintenance/cleaning).

kids today, just kids having fun ;)...

http://www.imdb.com/...es?qt=qt0298600

:lol:

jaclaz

Yep, Win2k and Win2k3 are definitely the best OSes MS ever made.

Mint has a ready-made WinME/2000 Theme for those that prefer simple windows with no pimping (see screenshot above).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try Linux Mint 13 MATE, has classic start button & customizable taskbar. My current uptime is 26 days and no more Windows BSODs.

I've said that if Microsoft doesn't make it so that I can avoid their Metro thing altogether, then when Windows 7 support runs out my screen will start looking like this.

--JorgeA

What distro is that? Mint MATE 14 was just released, has latest kernel to support Intel z77 platform. Here's my old Ubuntu, with only 8 GB memory, can run simultaneously Windows 2000, Windows 7 and Windows 8 Developer Preview.

That was Zorin OS 5.2, based on Ubuntu Natty Narwhal. There's a more current version 6, based on a newer Ubuntu edition, but I haven't had the chance to try it out.

What I like about it (and it's designed to be this way) is that it emulates the Windows experience, which is a plus for folks coming over from the Windows world. A lot of things are different of course, but there's an attempt to make the user experience feel less alien.

--JorgeA

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  1. Tripredacus thinks that measuring uptime and using it to make a point, *any* point about "good" or "bad" OS is meaningless metrics
  2. jaclaz thinks that while it is generally speaking meaningless metrics, the actual amount of uptime used in the given example is so trifling small that even IF uptime actually had some meanings, 26 days of it mean nothing anyway
  3. jorgeA thinks that uptime is meaningful and - in order to prove it - compares the meanigless 26 days of your Linux with his meaningless 1 day uptime experience with 7

Do not put words in my mouth. I neither think nor said nor implied any such thing. :angry: If you think that I thought, or said, or implied anything like that, that is your mistake.

Once again, *sigh* I was talking about the perception of Linux being more stable than Windows. I have no opinion about one or the other OS on that issue. The fact that my new Win7 system crashed so soon after getting it was meant merely to illustrate the point about that perception. My own experiences (as described in a previous post) lead me to agree with @Tripredacus that:

In the end, no OS is better than another in a general use standpoint so there is no reason to even have a debate.

--JorgeA

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been running Zorin 6.0 for quite some time now and it is very stable and dose everything I need it to do .There is a release 6.1 out now and if you have 6.0 just let it update no big deal .Zorin has become my main system and love it. I do how ever have windows on a drive just in case something should come up where I should need it! Don't know what that would be !

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not put words in my mouth. I neither think nor said nor implied any such thing. :angry: If you think that I thought, or said, or implied anything like that, that is your mistake.

Sure :), that was what I perceived (and nothing more, nor less).

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been running Zorin 6.0 for quite some time now and it is very stable and dose everything I need it to do .There is a release 6.1 out now and if you have 6.0 just let it update no big deal .Zorin has become my main system and love it. I do how ever have windows on a drive just in case something should come up where I should need it! Don't know what that would be !

Cool! At the risk of veering OT (off-topic), I've been curious over what the differences are between Zorin 5.2 and 6, in terms of user features. Been on their forum and website a number of times and can't find (or have forgotten) the page where they list what's new and what's been dropped in the new version.

Maybe "The Finder" can locate that info. ;):thumbup

--JorgeA

Edited by JorgeA
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here is Mint 13 on my 2nd machine running Windows 7 and 2000, everything is in Windows Classic Look. ;)

Pretty snazzy. Can you give Mint a Vista/Win7 (or even Longhorn) look?

--JorgeA

Edited by JorgeA
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.