[extropy-chat] when will computers improve?

[Brian Lee]

I've run windows2000 Pro and xp pro boxen for months without reboots. I do 
fairly resource intensive development that regularly has 2-5 server apps 
running consuming 1 gig physical and 2 gig paged memory. XP has bogged down, 
but never crashed and I have experienced no memory leaks with the gui.

Of course there are other problems native to XP like constant security 
updates. I would like to use a nice macosx or unix-like machine, but a lot 
of the software (java,oracle,weblogic,etc) is only supported on windows or 
solaris. Of course it's possible to run some of my apps on linux or bsd but 
then there's no support and no support sucks when you have anticipating 
clients.

I just wanted to mention this as the "Windows has to be rebooted once every 
n units of time" FUD hasn't been applicable since windows2000 (or maybe even 
NT4sp3).

BAL

>From: Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>>To: ExI chat list 
><extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] when will computers improve?
>Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:21:39 +0100
>
>On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 12:48:29PM -0800, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> >
> > Kevin, Kevin, Kevin -- get a real OS! You could get an
> > old copy of Windows 4.0 but Windows 2000 is *much* better
> > (though be sure to apply the service packs).
>
>Robert, OS advocacy, here?
>
> > You might even be able to pick up a version second hand
> > or at some discount computer outlet cheaply.
>
>You can get leg irons and a yoke even cheaper. Why do I have to pay for an 
>OS
>that doesn't even have a programming environment included? Life's too short
>to click away those requesters, and enter those product codes. Frankly, 
>these
>product codes and online activation are just completely knock-out 
>criterion,
>nevermind the price and lack of any bundled tools.
>
> > I've been using it for 3 years an I've rarely had a crash
> > (usually when I lose the fan on one of my CPUs).
>
>NT 5.0 is pretty stable, but for that pesky memory leak in the GUI, which
>makes me reboot it every two weeks. Unless you want a secure OS, then,
>Redmond is just not for you.
>
> > It may have a very rare memory leak (reboot it every couple
> > of months) and *does* still have internal OS memory limits
>
>It depends on the use. If you exercise it heavily, you may have to reboot
>every few days. This doesn't including development and testing. If you're
>unluckly, you just lock up at about every test.
>
> > (that Microsloth doesn't disclose unless you lean on the
> > tech support people) -- but they are *WAY* larger -- I can
> > run something like 75-100 windows before I start running
> > into problems -- even then it usually doesn't crash -- it
> > just gets slow and sometimes doesn't like to start new
> > processes.
>
>It's remarkably pathetic we still have these problems with GUIs in 2003. I
>can't think of a single OS that gets the GUI problem right.
>
> > The hardware has been able to manage this since the mid-'90s.
>
>The hardware has been able to manage GUIs since early 70s, and certainly
>since early 80s. Arguably, current hardware has a far higher latency 
>overhead
>than mid-80s hardware did.
>
> > The problem was that Microsoft wanted to remain backwards
> > compatible with the new software on the 286 machines so their
>
>Actually, not. Redmond used to have an innovation cycle, periodically 
>forcing users to
>abandon previous investments. Right now they're moving to a subscription
>model to assure continuous flow of revenue, but it's not succeeding very
>well.
>
> > end-user OSs never took advantage of the capabilities of the
> > 386, 486, etc.  Only the high end server OSs were real 32-bit
> > OSs with real memory protection.
>
>32 bit reentrant multitasking with memory protection predates even UNIX.
>
> > My experience with Windows 2000 is that it is almost as stable
> > as Linux and UnixWare.  On the other hand Windows 95 and 98 are
>
>OS stability analysis needs context. Which Linux, which hardware base, how
>administered? For a server OS, you'd do much better with a *BSD. For a
>desktop OS, with properly administered Debian (I use RedHat/Fedora, but it
>frankly sucks rocks).
>
> > very insecure because there is no memory protection and they
> > are basically kludged 16 bit systems while Windows XP from
> > what I have heard is simply buggy.
>
>XP Professional is arguably more stable than 2000, though your uptime will 
>be
>short, very short.
>
> > If you look around you might even be able to find people selling
> > Win2K as an upgrade CD that allows you to migrate up from 98
> > to 2K without having to pay the full 2K price.
>
>If you need a desktop OS, get a Mac. Whether Jaguar, or Panther, if you 
>can't
>handle a russian truck, get OS X.
>
>-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
>______________________________________________________________
>ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
>8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
>http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
><< attach4 >>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

_________________________________________________________________
It’s our best dial-up Internet access offer: 6 months @$9.95/month. Get it 
now!  http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup