Author Topic: XP Vs Linux in stability.. (DUN DUN DUN) (Read 793 times)

sirdiesalot1112 · « **on:** 4 September 2002, 03:57 »

I have a AIM friend and he uses windows XP home ED, i think, some kinda favor of XP, anywho, he bullshitted me about his family box (dell, i belive) would stay on, non-stop with XP for months, I can belive a week, maybe two, but MONTH(

?! I'm sorry, but this asshole needs to be shown the light..

Anyway, I told him, he can keep his XP box on nonstop for as long as he can, and as soon as he sees errors, or any kinda slowup/ bsd etc. that he tell me, and i would still be going like i just booted my box up (Slackware linux 2.4.19 kernel). he has a fresh install of XP.

anywho, imma redirect him to this fourm, and i am hoping you will put as many bad things about XP as possible, and as many good things too (are there?). I want him to see more then one persons veiw on the subject, and i feel this is the fourm to do it in..

LETS SHOW THIS DIPSHIT THE LIGHT!

MacUser3of5 · « **Reply #1 on:** 4 September 2002, 04:08 »

If you think this forum will change his mind, then you, my friend, are the 'dipshit'.

Bazoukas · « **Reply #2 on:** 4 September 2002, 04:59 »

Dont be a fool.

A windows OS like NT or XP can stay up and running for months. It can be done.

WINDOWS IS ROCK STABLE !!!!!!!!!!!!! PERIOD!!!!!

you just need to run Word, winamp and IE. Anything more for more than two weeks and Windows gets out of whack, gets upset, crys, and goes on the corner to do a Kernel dumb.

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: bazoukas ]

RudeCat7 · « **Reply #3 on:** 4 September 2002, 07:02 »

How about a little bit more detail in your profile?

You gave about zero, or less info.

Chooco · « **Reply #4 on:** 4 September 2002, 10:36 »

i actually believe your friend, i've kept XP on for more than a month at a time with no errors or anything, works great.

so far my Linux puter's been up for 10 days, let's see how long it can lst

Zombie9920 · « **Reply #5 on:** 4 September 2002, 10:40 »

quote:
Originally posted by RudeCat7:
How about a little bit more detail in your profile?

You gave about zero, or less info.

Here he goes with that fill out your profile crap again. Heer har der....fill out your profile...her hardy har. ROFLMFAO!

Zombie9920 · « **Reply #6 on:** 4 September 2002, 10:45 »

Of course Windows XP can stay up for months. WinNT4,Win2K and Windows .NET can maintain great uptimes too. Anything NT can run for nonstop for long periods of time with no problems. My uptime with XP was just a little short of 5 1/2 months, then I decided to install new chipset and video card drivers then I had to reboot. Right now my current uptime is almost at 2 months. I use the system to do everything too, so nobody can say I just let my box sit and do nothing.

If it wasn't for the driver updates I installed I would have about a 7 1/2 month uptime right now. Oh well, it is a small price to pay for better gaming and 3DMArk performance. ;P

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]

Zombie9920 · « **Reply #7 on:** 4 September 2002, 11:17 »

quote:
Originally posted by Ex Eleven / b0b:
My system has been for a week before, but it's hardware handles like a dodge, very rattley, no matter what OS. Linux still has better Uptime so far... Windows 2k has ran for 4 days at most and line for a week.

Somehow I doubt that you even use Windows long enough to get a good uptime with it.

Zombie9920 · « **Reply #8 on:** 4 September 2002, 11:19 »

quote:
Originally posted by Ex Eleven / b0b:
Hmmm its disgusting people like you why the winds here a upto 250kmh thanks to global warming.

What the fuck are you rambling on about? Half of the time you make absolutley no sense at all.

rtgwbmsr · « **Reply #9 on:** 4 September 2002, 11:22 »

The longest I could keep a WinXP Pro computer running Apache 2.0.36 running was 3 days (tweaked) and 2 days (untweaked) (In a little while, I'll break four, this is my 7th run). It crashed HARD on the end of the last run, everthing locked up solid, and I have no clue why...it's never done that before. The server really isn't being used, so when it does get hammered in a few weeks we'll see how long it lasts.

As for Linux running Apache 2.0.36, the longest I ever had it running (tweaked) was about 3 months. Then I decided to install XP for testing purposes, and that's the only reason I stopped it. This thing under Linux (Red Hat) was brutalized. I ran Quake III (w/decent frame rates, mind you) while 5-10 people were downloading 100+ MB files. Good shit

I'm not bashing XP, I'm stating fact. If XP runs more than 4, or even to 90 days, I would have no problem stating that fact. Right now it is my production server, so it should be interesting to see what happens.

BTW: This is a totally different computer than the one I posted in the hardware discussion. In case you wanted to know:

AMD Athlon Classic 750 MHz
EP7KXA Mobo (Slot A)
1536 MB RAM 3x PC-133 Chips
2x(HW-Mirrored) 120 GB HDDs (I just added these)
GeForce 2 MX (Also just added)
24x10x40 CD Burner (Just added)
Floppy Drive
Tiny ass n' silent case
Video, Mouse & Keyboard over a KVM switch
Partitions:
Red Hat Linux - Updated to 7.3 (10 GB incl. Swap)
Windows XP Pro - All Updates (10 GB)
File storage space (100 GB)

PS: Fill out your phuckin' profiles! He's got a point. I know :rolleyes: but it's worth it...we may share a common interest. Maybe even *Gasp* get along for 30 seconds!

-Dustin

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: The_Muffin_Man/ Dustin /B0b ]

Zombie9920 · « **Reply #10 on:** 4 September 2002, 11:38 »

quote:
Originally posted by The_Muffin_Man/ Dustin /B0b:
The longest I could keep a WinXP Pro computer running Apache 2.0.36 running was 3 days (tweaked) and 2 days (untweaked) (In a little while, I'll break four, this is my 7th run). It crashed HARD on the end of the last run, everthing locked up solid, and I have no clue why...it's never done that before. The server really isn't being used, so when it does get hammered in a few weeks we'll see how long it lasts.

As for Linux running Apache 2.0.36, the longest I ever had it running (tweaked) was about 3 months. Then I decided to install XP for testing purposes, and that's the only reason I stopped it. This thing under Linux (Red Hat) was brutalized. I ran Quake III (w/decent frame rates, mind you) while 5-10 people were downloading 100+ MB files. Good shit

I'm not bashing XP, I'm stating fact. If XP runs more than 4, or even to 90 days, I would have no problem stating that fact. Right now it is my production server, so it should be interesting to see what happens.

BTW: This is a totally different computer than the one I posted in the hardware discussion. In case you wanted to know:

AMD Athlon Classic 750 MHz
EP7KXA Mobo (Slot A)
1536 MB RAM 3x PC-133 Chips
2x(HW-Mirrored) 120 GB HDDs (I just added these)
GeForce 2 MX (Also just added)
24x10x40 CD Burner (Just added)
Floppy Drive
Tiny ass n' silent case
Video, Mouse & Keyboard over a KVM switch
Partitions:
Red Hat Linux - Updated to 7.3 (10 GB incl. Swap)
Windows XP Pro - All Updates (10 GB)
File storage space (100 GB)

-Dustin

If you want top notch stability and reliability from Windows you really should try running the server on a system with an Intel CPU and Intel chipset. Your system may have hard locked from a Via chipset bug(the Via 686A and 686B based chipsets are plauged with lots o' bugs) or perhaps maybe your CPU overheated(Athlons do have heat issues...heat=bad for stablity). I have an Athlon XP 1600+ on a KT133A(686B) chipset motherboard and I can't get Windows to run reliably for any longer than 5 days without rebooting. For some reason on my Athlon box it will run nice and fast at first but it's performance diminishes to almost pentium classic speeds unless I periodically reboot.

The system that I had the 7 1/2 month uptime and now almost 2month uptime on is a 1.7ghz P4 o/ced to almost 2.1ghz on I850 chipset.

My 2.53ghz P4 northwood on I850E chipset box has been up for a little over 2 months now. I don't even bother with leaving the Athlon box running when I'm not using it(I hardley even use it..I mainly use my Northwood box anymore

) and I always leave my 2 P4 systems running.

Basically, if you have better quality(I know it is more expensive but you get what you pay for) hardware you will get a better experience out of your system(no matter what OS you use really)).

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]

voidmain · « **Reply #11 on:** 4 September 2002, 11:48 »

So now you are telling me I must run Intel processors to get good reliability out of Windows? Thanks for the advice, guess I'll be sticking with Linux as it does not discriminate. It runs great on both Intel *and* AMD.

Code: [Select]

Zombie9920 · « **Reply #12 on:** 4 September 2002, 11:55 »

Code: [Select]

[/qb]<hr></blockquote>

Windows runs good on Athlons and Durons for a few days without a reboot but you do need to periodically reboot Windows on AMD boxes. If you don't reboot the system will start getting noticabley slower and slower and slower until you reboot(You regain speed after rebooting though). I'm speaking from my experiences with my AMD box and a few friends AMD boxes..some people may have better luck with Windows and AMD boxes.

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]

voidmain · « **Reply #13 on:** 4 September 2002, 12:03 »

quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
Windows runs good on Athlons and Durons for a few days without a reboot but you do need to periodically reboot Windows on AMD boxes. If you don't reboot the system will start getting noticabley slower and slower and slower until you reboot(You regain speed after rebooting though). I'm speaking from my experiences with my AMD box and a few friends AMD boxes..some people may have better luck with Windows and AMD boxes.

Well that would just plain be unacceptable in my book. And if I would have bought a copy of XP and had this kind of eXPerience I would surely have demanded my money back.

rtgwbmsr · « **Reply #14 on:** 4 September 2002, 12:08 »

quote:
Originally posted by VoidMain:
So now you are telling me I must run Intel processors to get good reliability out of Windows? Thanks for the advice, guess I'll be sticking with Linux as it does not discriminate. It runs great on both Intel *and* AMD.

Zombie9920, you are right, Win and intel are great together...that's why the word Wintel coined. I have to agree with VoidMain because I can't afford to blow off another $400-$700 on parts just cuz it's "intel", and then spend even more on an OS that works better with it than other low cost components. It's not worth it in a file server. The only requirement I have is that it runs. On my PC though, it would be different.

AMD is cheaper, and Linux is free...one of the reasons I converted. I am telling you this as a person with an ever-shrinking bank account, not as a "Linux Zombie/Slave to Tux(I like this one...couldn't you just imagine Britney S. singing "I'm a sllaaaavvveee to Tux..." lol!)".

-Dustin

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: The_Muffin_Man/ Dustin /B0b ]

« previous next » Print Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Author Topic: XP Vs Linux in stability.. (DUN DUN DUN) (Read 793 times) sirdiesalot1112 Newbie Posts: 10 Kudos: 0 XP Vs Linux in stability.. (DUN DUN DUN) « on: 4 September 2002, 03:57 » I have a AIM friend and he uses windows XP home ED, i think, some kinda favor of XP, anywho, he bullshitted me about his family box (dell, i belive) would stay on, non-stop with XP for months, I can belive a week, maybe two, but MONTH(?! I'm sorry, but this asshole needs to be shown the light.. Anyway, I told him, he can keep his XP box on nonstop for as long as he can, and as soon as he sees errors, or any kinda slowup/ bsd etc. that he tell me, and i would still be going like i just booted my box up (Slackware linux 2.4.19 kernel). he has a fresh install of XP. anywho, imma redirect him to this fourm, and i am hoping you will put as many bad things about XP as possible, and as many good things too (are there?). I want him to see more then one persons veiw on the subject, and i feel this is the fourm to do it in.. LETS SHOW THIS DIPSHIT THE LIGHT! Logged I have seen the light, and it's in the form of a penguin.... MacUser3of5 Member Posts: 78 Kudos: 0 XP Vs Linux in stability.. (DUN DUN DUN) « Reply #1 on: 4 September 2002, 04:08 » If you think this forum will change his mind, then you, my friend, are the 'dipshit'. Logged "Let them call me a rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul..." - Thomas Paine Bazoukas Member Posts: 866 Kudos: 140 XP Vs Linux in stability.. (DUN DUN DUN) « Reply #2 on: 4 September 2002, 04:59 » Dont be a fool. A windows OS like NT or XP can stay up and running for months. It can be done. WINDOWS IS ROCK STABLE !!!!!!!!!!!!! PERIOD!!!!! you just need to run Word, winamp and IE. Anything more for more than two weeks and Windows gets out of whack, gets upset, crys, and goes on the corner to do a Kernel dumb. [ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: bazoukas ] Logged Yeah RudeCat7 Member Posts: 431 Kudos: 109 XP Vs Linux in stability.. (DUN DUN DUN) « Reply #3 on: 4 September 2002, 07:02 » How about a little bit more detail in your profile? You gave about zero, or less info. Logged meow! I didn't say Linux was easier, I said it was better, Dumbass! Chooco Member Posts: 318 Kudos: 0 XP Vs Linux in stability.. (DUN DUN DUN) « Reply #4 on: 4 September 2002, 10:36 » i actually believe your friend, i've kept XP on for more than a month at a time with no errors or anything, works great. so far my Linux puter's been up for 10 days, let's see how long it can lst Logged Zombie9920 Member Posts: 1,309 Kudos: 33 XP Vs Linux in stability.. (DUN DUN DUN) « Reply #5 on: 4 September 2002, 10:40 » quote: Originally posted by RudeCat7: How about a little bit more detail in your profile? You gave about zero, or less info. Here he goes with that fill out your profile crap again. Heer har der....fill out your profile...her hardy har. ROFLMFAO! Logged Zombie9920 Member Posts: 1,309 Kudos: 33 XP Vs Linux in stability.. (DUN DUN DUN) « Reply #6 on: 4 September 2002, 10:45 » Of course Windows XP can stay up for months. WinNT4,Win2K and Windows .NET can maintain great uptimes too. Anything NT can run for nonstop for long periods of time with no problems. My uptime with XP was just a little short of 5 1/2 months, then I decided to install new chipset and video card drivers then I had to reboot. Right now my current uptime is almost at 2 months. I use the system to do everything too, so nobody can say I just let my box sit and do nothing. If it wasn't for the driver updates I installed I would have about a 7 1/2 month uptime right now. Oh well, it is a small price to pay for better gaming and 3DMArk performance. ;P [ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ] Logged Zombie9920 Member Posts: 1,309 Kudos: 33 XP Vs Linux in stability.. (DUN DUN DUN) « Reply #7 on: 4 September 2002, 11:17 » quote: Originally posted by Ex Eleven / b0b: My system has been for a week before, but it's hardware handles like a dodge, very rattley, no matter what OS. Linux still has better Uptime so far... Windows 2k has ran for 4 days at most and line for a week. Somehow I doubt that you even use Windows long enough to get a good uptime with it. Logged Zombie9920 Member Posts: 1,309 Kudos: 33 XP Vs Linux in stability.. (DUN DUN DUN) « Reply #8 on: 4 September 2002, 11:19 » quote: Originally posted by Ex Eleven / b0b: Hmmm its disgusting people like you why the winds here a upto 250kmh thanks to global warming. What the fuck are you rambling on about? Half of the time you make absolutley no sense at all. Logged rtgwbmsr VIP Posts: 1,257 Kudos: 0 XP Vs Linux in stability.. (DUN DUN DUN) « Reply #9 on: 4 September 2002, 11:22 » The longest I could keep a WinXP Pro computer running Apache 2.0.36 running was 3 days (tweaked) and 2 days (untweaked) (In a little while, I'll break four, this is my 7th run). It crashed HARD on the end of the last run, everthing locked up solid, and I have no clue why...it's never done that before. The server really isn't being used, so when it does get hammered in a few weeks we'll see how long it lasts. As for Linux running Apache 2.0.36, the longest I ever had it running (tweaked) was about 3 months. Then I decided to install XP for testing purposes, and that's the only reason I stopped it. This thing under Linux (Red Hat) was brutalized. I ran Quake III (w/decent frame rates, mind you) while 5-10 people were downloading 100+ MB files. Good shit I'm not bashing XP, I'm stating fact. If XP runs more than 4, or even to 90 days, I would have no problem stating that fact. Right now it is my production server, so it should be interesting to see what happens. BTW: This is a totally different computer than the one I posted in the hardware discussion. In case you wanted to know: AMD Athlon Classic 750 MHz EP7KXA Mobo (Slot A) 1536 MB RAM 3x PC-133 Chips 2x(HW-Mirrored) 120 GB HDDs (I just added these) GeForce 2 MX (Also just added) 24x10x40 CD Burner (Just added) Floppy Drive Tiny ass n' silent case Video, Mouse & Keyboard over a KVM switch Partitions: Red Hat Linux - Updated to 7.3 (10 GB incl. Swap) Windows XP Pro - All Updates (10 GB) File storage space (100 GB) PS: Fill out your phuckin' profiles! He's got a point. I know :rolleyes: but it's worth it...we may share a common interest. Maybe even Gasp get along for 30 seconds! -Dustin [ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: The_Muffin_Man/ Dustin /B0b ] Logged Check out my website (especially the wallpapers) Support free digital art! Zombie9920 Member Posts: 1,309 Kudos: 33 XP Vs Linux in stability.. (DUN DUN DUN) « Reply #10 on: 4 September 2002, 11:38 » quote: Originally posted by The_Muffin_Man/ Dustin /B0b: The longest I could keep a WinXP Pro computer running Apache 2.0.36 running was 3 days (tweaked) and 2 days (untweaked) (In a little while, I'll break four, this is my 7th run). It crashed HARD on the end of the last run, everthing locked up solid, and I have no clue why...it's never done that before. The server really isn't being used, so when it does get hammered in a few weeks we'll see how long it lasts. As for Linux running Apache 2.0.36, the longest I ever had it running (tweaked) was about 3 months. Then I decided to install XP for testing purposes, and that's the only reason I stopped it. This thing under Linux (Red Hat) was brutalized. I ran Quake III (w/decent frame rates, mind you) while 5-10 people were downloading 100+ MB files. Good shit I'm not bashing XP, I'm stating fact. If XP runs more than 4, or even to 90 days, I would have no problem stating that fact. Right now it is my production server, so it should be interesting to see what happens. BTW: This is a totally different computer than the one I posted in the hardware discussion. In case you wanted to know: AMD Athlon Classic 750 MHz EP7KXA Mobo (Slot A) 1536 MB RAM 3x PC-133 Chips 2x(HW-Mirrored) 120 GB HDDs (I just added these) GeForce 2 MX (Also just added) 24x10x40 CD Burner (Just added) Floppy Drive Tiny ass n' silent case Video, Mouse & Keyboard over a KVM switch Partitions: Red Hat Linux - Updated to 7.3 (10 GB incl. Swap) Windows XP Pro - All Updates (10 GB) File storage space (100 GB) -Dustin If you want top notch stability and reliability from Windows you really should try running the server on a system with an Intel CPU and Intel chipset. Your system may have hard locked from a Via chipset bug(the Via 686A and 686B based chipsets are plauged with lots o' bugs) or perhaps maybe your CPU overheated(Athlons do have heat issues...heat=bad for stablity). I have an Athlon XP 1600+ on a KT133A(686B) chipset motherboard and I can't get Windows to run reliably for any longer than 5 days without rebooting. For some reason on my Athlon box it will run nice and fast at first but it's performance diminishes to almost pentium classic speeds unless I periodically reboot. The system that I had the 7 1/2 month uptime and now almost 2month uptime on is a 1.7ghz P4 o/ced to almost 2.1ghz on I850 chipset. My 2.53ghz P4 northwood on I850E chipset box has been up for a little over 2 months now. I don't even bother with leaving the Athlon box running when I'm not using it(I hardley even use it..I mainly use my Northwood box anymore ) and I always leave my 2 P4 systems running. Basically, if you have better quality(I know it is more expensive but you get what you pay for) hardware you will get a better experience out of your system(no matter what OS you use really)). [ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ] Logged voidmain VIP Posts: 5,605 Kudos: 184 XP Vs Linux in stability.. (DUN DUN DUN) « Reply #11 on: 4 September 2002, 11:48 » So now you are telling me I must run Intel processors to get good reliability out of Windows? Thanks for the advice, guess I'll be sticking with Linux as it does not discriminate. It runs great on both Intel and AMD. Code: [Select] Logged Someone please remove this account. Thanks... Zombie9920 Member Posts: 1,309 Kudos: 33 XP Vs Linux in stability.. (DUN DUN DUN) « Reply #12 on: 4 September 2002, 11:55 » Code: [Select] [/qb]<hr></blockquote> Windows runs good on Athlons and Durons for a few days without a reboot but you do need to periodically reboot Windows on AMD boxes. If you don't reboot the system will start getting noticabley slower and slower and slower until you reboot(You regain speed after rebooting though). I'm speaking from my experiences with my AMD box and a few friends AMD boxes..some people may have better luck with Windows and AMD boxes. [ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ] Logged voidmain VIP Posts: 5,605 Kudos: 184 XP Vs Linux in stability.. (DUN DUN DUN) « Reply #13 on: 4 September 2002, 12:03 » quote: Originally posted by Zombie9920: Windows runs good on Athlons and Durons for a few days without a reboot but you do need to periodically reboot Windows on AMD boxes. If you don't reboot the system will start getting noticabley slower and slower and slower until you reboot(You regain speed after rebooting though). I'm speaking from my experiences with my AMD box and a few friends AMD boxes..some people may have better luck with Windows and AMD boxes. Well that would just plain be unacceptable in my book. And if I would have bought a copy of XP and had this kind of eXPerience I would surely have demanded my money back. Logged Someone please remove this account. Thanks... rtgwbmsr VIP Posts: 1,257 Kudos: 0 XP Vs Linux in stability.. (DUN DUN DUN) « Reply #14 on: 4 September 2002, 12:08 » quote: Originally posted by VoidMain: So now you are telling me I must run Intel processors to get good reliability out of Windows? Thanks for the advice, guess I'll be sticking with Linux as it does not discriminate. It runs great on both Intel and AMD. Zombie9920, you are right, Win and intel are great together...that's why the word Wintel coined. I have to agree with VoidMain because I can't afford to blow off another $400-$700 on parts just cuz it's "intel", and then spend even more on an OS that works better with it than other low cost components. It's not worth it in a file server. The only requirement I have is that it runs. On my PC though, it would be different. AMD is cheaper, and Linux is free...one of the reasons I converted. I am telling you this as a person with an ever-shrinking bank account, not as a "Linux Zombie/Slave to Tux(I like this one...couldn't you just imagine Britney S. singing "I'm a sllaaaavvveee to Tux..." lol!)". -Dustin [ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: The_Muffin_Man/ Dustin /B0b ] Logged Check out my website (especially the wallpapers) Support free digital art! Print Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Up « previous next » Stop Microsoft » Forum » All Things Microsoft » Microsoft Software » XP Vs Linux in stability.. (DUN DUN DUN)
Share or donate

Author Topic: XP Vs Linux in stability.. (DUN DUN DUN) (Read 793 times)

Share or donate