Markus Becker wrote:

> Peter Popov wrote:
> >
> > In the past 100 hours, 242 reboots...
> >                            ...and counting...
>
> Why don't you folks use Windows NT, as I do?
> Machine: Dual Pentium 200 MMX, 96MB RAM,
> current uptime: 1738,5 hours. Yes, that's
> two and a half months.

Well, the license fee is a factor for some. Another big reason is that
it is such a resource hog. For me, it's just not stable enought for
multimedia work. I used to have a dual 333 at work with NT 4, and if I'd
push the video too much (Java 2, MPEG playback, etc.) it would instantly
freeze the machine without even a BSOD. Plus I'd have to reboot every
few days to reclaim memory. Plus that NTFS once it gets fragmented will
start eating up the HD space for it's replacement for the FAT (forget
what it was called off hand). And the HD became even too fragmented to
defragment...

If you get a good NT configuration, all is well. But if not...

With Linux, my one box here at home had a 180 day uptime. Yes, that's
half a year. And the only reason it came down was becuase we had a short
blackout here and I don't have it on a UPS.

At work I've had to shut down Linux and/or Sun workstations to move
them. That's about it. My NT boxes on the other hand...


Anyway, that was all to answer your question of why I'm not running NT.


--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.

Post a reply to this message