Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Software => Topic started by: 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(S)?! 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!
-
LOL
If you think this forum will change his mind, then you, my friend, are the 'dipshit'.
-
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 ]
-
How about a little bit more detail in your profile?
You gave about zero, or less info.
-
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 ;)
-
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!
-
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 ]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :D
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 ]
-
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 :D
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 :D ) 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 ]
-
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.
-
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 ]
-
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.
-
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 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Ex Eleven / b0b:
I put it too you, dat you sucked off a horse!
Yeah and you licked a dingos' ass. (http://zombie9920.homestead.com/files/5.gif)
[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
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.
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 ]
-
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 ]
Anymore an Intel CPU isn't much more than an AMD CPU because of the Intel/AMD price cut wars. From www.pricewatch.com (http://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. ;(
-
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 ]
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.
-
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?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Ex Eleven / b0b:
And people like me to heaps to many, my pc im on now has a electric car fan in the side. Also has a fan at the bottom to blow out, fan/heatsink on the HDD, Another fan blutacked at the upper back just below the Power Supply. Im also putting in a water cooling kit. Just for bragging rights.
Zombie's name says it all!
Why in the heck are you puttting all of that cooling shit on a Celeron system? A PIII and P4 doesn't even need all of that shit let alone a cooler running Celeron. I guess some people like loud PC's. LoL
Neither of my P4 systems even have a fan on the heatsink. The heatsink alone adequatley cools the P4's so why add a fan to make noise? Heck, you can run a P4 with no heatsink at all(it will underclock itself for thermal reasons though..so running with no heatsink is pointless).
-
quote:
Originally posted by Ex Eleven / b0b:
did you lick a dingo's ass, how did you get in the USA!
It originally said that "Yeah and you licked a dingos' ass." . Did somebody conveniantly remove "you" from the sentence? No matter, I just edited it back to what I originally said. ;P
[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Ex Eleven / b0b:
No if you did that there would be a [Editied by: blah blah] thing there. so you did it, admit you are a beastiac!
Nope, I know what I originally said. Somebody fucked with my post(and no I'm not saying it was you). There is only one person here who can edit a post and it not show that he edited it(everybody knows who that is)...or maybe that secretive cunt can hack posts? Fuck, I'm not even worried about it. It isn't like it's the first time my posts have been fucked with.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
Anymore an Intel CPU isn't much more than an AMD CPU because of the Intel/AMD price cut wars. From www.pricewatch.com (http://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. ;(
Don't forget to factor in the cost for your RD-RAM, else it won't run like it was born to.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Tux:
Don't forget to factor in the cost for your RD-RAM, else it won't run like it was born to.
A P4 will run ok with DDR-Ram(on a DDR chipset of course..like the i845G and i845GL). You do need Rambus to get the full potential outta the P4 though.
-
Well.. I filled out my profile for you all to have a look at.. and My system specs are:
AMD Athlon 650Mhz @ 722MHz
416MB ram
Soyo SY-K7VIA mobo
Geforce 3 Ti 500 (FREE!!!! so dont make fun)
30GB WDC 5400RPM HDD
33.6 USRobotics external serial modem
8x8x32 CD-R/W
48X CDROM
350W PSU
SBlive
Linksys LNE100TX network card
Current uptime with Slackware linux (2.4.5 kernel)
4 days 11 hours
(rebooted to play halflife, can't figure out how to configure wine properly)
My system's longest uptime in windows (98se) was 3 days, but i was gone for one of them (http://smile.gif)
longest uptime for linux was like 4 months or something, and it turned off cause of power outage . :(
I can overclock my CPU to 722MHz and it's rock solid (it was OC to 722 when i had it on for 4 months)
-
quote:
Originally posted by K7_and_Linux...:
Geforce 3 Ti 500 (FREE!!!! so dont make fun)
Why would anyone make fun of your GeForce 3 Ti500? There is absolutely nothing wrong with a GF3 Ti500. It is able to run any game currently available that you can throw at it. Heck, that GF3 is the best piece of hardware in the sytsem you just listed. ;P
[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
damn it i had to restart Linux today. it didn't crash but my first login session froze, the login that i work in (login 2) worked great but i figured that having a frozen desktop can't be good so i restarted.
-
If we are going to have a longest running time competition, my longest is 3 weeks, 2 days...
... on a PowerBook (http://tongue.gif)
Also, I will work on my profile, I just didn't bother to write anything when I registered... I wasn't being secretive or anything.
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: MacUser3of5 ]
-
You could have just killed/restarted the desktop. I haven't had that happen to me in a long long long long time but I have always been able to restart X if I had a lockup like that without rebooting (even had to remotely log in before to kill/restart X). And unlike Windows processes don't leave allocated memory lying around, the OS cleans up these situations after being killed.
-
quote:
Originally posted by MacUser3of5:
If we are going to have a longest running time competition, my longest is 3 weeks, 2 days...
... on a PowerBook (http://tongue.gif)
Uh you've got a long way to go to beat my 490 days...
-
Considering I've owned this for about 2 months, yes, yes I do ;)
I also had to shut it down for loading OS 9... but I will see how long I can go on... currently, it's on five days, 12 hours...
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: MacUser3of5 ]
-
Are you running OS X? Never mind, you edited your post with the answer. (http://smile.gif)
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by 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?
My point exactly.
I have never had a full crash in Linux.
I love to play with source code.
Microsoft just can't give me that.
So, by now, you have 3 of my reasons for switching.
-
But wouldn't you agree, that with an average user (which it sounded like the post was about) access to the source code is irrelevant?
Also, people like to play lots of games, etc... Linux isn't undersupported per se, but there just isn't as much support for mainstream products, meaning games, which this AIM person most likely plays.
Also, Windows XP is all-around fairly well done and pretty stable, but I would rather use 2k if I had to choose.
-
quote:
Originally posted by MacUser3of5:
But wouldn't you agree, that with an average user (which it sounded like the post was about) access to the source code is irrelevant?
Actually no I wouldn't. It's likely that the "average user" you speak of knows someone who is more than an "average user" and that source code could help the "not so average user" give the "average user" what he desires.
quote:
Also, people like to play lots of games, etc... Linux isn't undersupported per se, but there just isn't as much support for mainstream products, meaning games, which this AIM person most likely plays.
Well the first category in my "main stream products book" isn't games.
quote:
Also, Windows XP is all-around fairly well done and pretty stable, but I would rather use 2k if I had to choose.
I'm glad I have more choices than those to choose from because I don't choose either of them.
But I understand where you are coming from. Someone who only plays games is not going to come to Linux because there are fewer game developers for Linux. There are fewer game developers for Linux because there are fewer people who use Linux to play games. That's the problem that needs to be addressed. Do you have any suggestions (seriously)? I don't know the answer. I do believe if the developers were to bite the bullet for a little while and produce all of their games for Linux there might be a chance that gamers will start to transition in mass numbers. Who knows?
I do think the cyclic redundancy will eventually be broken some how, some way. I don't even know what "cyclic redundancy" means, I just see it on a lot of broken Microsoft Web servers, and this is what I imagine it could mean. (http://smile.gif)
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
It seems like in vereral points of this conversation Zombie seemed to dodge the REALLY good arguments for the less convincing ones. It's sad really...
-
Sorry Zombie, 7 days. I had to restart after the computer stopped recognizing other computers on the network, and became horrendously sluggish. Restarting fixed both.
Someone: WTF!? A final version of Mozilla (1.1) is crashing more than IE. Of course, unlike IE, it restarts the app and picks up where it left off. May be related to the network problems or sluggishness.
-
Reading all of this, I just had to add that:
AMD sponsors Ferrari Formula 1 Team
Intel sponsors BMW Williams Formula 1 Team
I know I know, Off Topic.
Hmm AMD Sponsers Ferrari Formula 1 Team (http://www.pcstats.com/releaseview.cfm?releaseID=796)
[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: tr_one ]
-
Sorry but winblows sucks ass. I have had to reinstall windows 2000 3 times in the past month because of stupid errors. You can't possibly run windows for long because of all the stupid blue screens and the fact that it doesn't like it if you run a game or some other high resource program. Windows cries if you don't have a ton of ram or processor speed.