All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
XP Vs Linux in stability.. (DUN DUN DUN)
Zombie9920:
quote:Originally posted by Ex Eleven / b0b:
I put it too you, dat you sucked off a horse!
--- End quote ---
Yeah and you licked a dingos' ass.
[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
rtgwbmsr:
quote:Originally posted by Zombie9920:
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.
--- End quote ---
XP's shitty system cache and memory management in action...it is horrible and has to be tweaked more for both Intel and AMD.
And about the heat: Some people don't know how to put a heatsink on properly...USER ERROR...no companie's fault.
[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: The_Muffin_Man/ Dustin /B0b ]
Zombie9920:
quote:Originally posted by The_Muffin_Man/ Dustin /B0b:
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 ]
--- End quote ---
Anymore an Intel CPU isn't much more than an AMD CPU because of the Intel/AMD price cut wars. From www.pricewatch.com
Athlon XP 2200+ = $145
2.4ghz Pentium 4 Northwood w/533mhz FSB = $200
The 2.4ghz Northwood w/533mhz FSB performs slightly better than the Athlon XP 2200+ in most cases, it has no thermal issues, and is a better quality product...for just a mere $45 more.
Intel isn't really that expensive of a route to go anymore and Intel is definatley the king of reliability/stability. It kinda makes me mad that I bought my 2.53ghz Northwood when it first came out because I paid $530 for the CPU...now it is down to $240. I need to start having patients when purchasing new hardware. ;(
Zombie9920:
quote:Originally posted by The_Muffin_Man/ Dustin /B0b:
XP's shitty system cache and memory management in action...it is horrible and has to be tweaked more for both Intel and AMD.
And about the heat: Some people don't know how to put a heatsink on properly...USER ERROR...no companie's fault.
[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: The_Muffin_Man/ Dustin /B0b ]
--- End quote ---
My Athlon XP and Windows issue isn't from heat. My Athlon runs 32c idle and maxes out at 42c after hours of full load. The stupid system sounds like a jet taking off though because of all of the case fans I have in it compared to my Intel systems being so quiet I can hear a pin drop because they don't need all of the cooling.
I love my Northwood system because it is simply the fastest computer I have ever used, it is very reliable and of course I don't have any system noise interfering with my MP3's, game music/sounds, etc.
The thing is, MS OSes are designed to run the best on i*86. a*86 is slightly different from i*86. AMD tries to make thier CPU's as Intel x86 compatible as possible, but thier i*86 emulation is not perfect.
voidmain:
But what happened to that argument about Windows supporting all this hardware? I don't believe it should count if it only supports it half assed. And surely AMD Athalon would have to be one of the most critical pieces of hardware that should be supported, even if slightly behind Intel. I have *never* had a problem on my Athalon/VIA chipset with Linux. It doesn't have any such "slowdown" problem you describe with XP.
So now why should I pay the extra $45 for the processor, then the extra $??? for XP, then the extra $??? for MS Office XP, then the extra $??? for Visual.net, then the extra $???? for SQL Server, and *still* not get the source code?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version