[Date Prev][Date
Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date
Index][Thread Index]
RE: Re-inventing the wheel...
- To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Re-inventing the wheel...
- From: "Mark Harrison" <Mark@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:54:32 +0100
- Delivered-to: rich@xxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: mailing list ukha_d@xxxxxxx
- Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact
ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
- Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
I'm sorry but I disagree about the "always has been" part of Win
NT's stability.
Between August '97 and September 2000 I was European IT Manager for BP
Retail Engineering.
NT only really became stable with Service Pack 3!!!
That means that NT 4.0, NT 4.0 SP1 and NT 4.0 SP2 were unreliable.
W2k seems a lot more stable than the early releases of NT 4.
-----Original Message-----
From: REB.Barnett@xxxxxxx
[mailto:REB.Barnett@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 16 October 2000 13:23
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Re-inventing the wheel...
When you say Win 2000 is supposed to be more stable, more stable than what?
In my experience Win 9x can be very flakey, but Windows NT is superb, and
always has been.
My NT Workstation here gets a real bashing, and has crashed 2 or 3 times in
the past year (dodgy video card driver) of 9-5 working. My NT Server(s) at
home run 24x7. One is also used as a desktop machine for image editing,
development and surfing, which is pretty stressful for it (memory/cpu
intensive). They only get re-booted every few months, mainly when I
add/remove hardware or wifey switches the scanner off.
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Tellme Sports. Tellme Stocks. Tellme News. Just Tellme.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9530/9/_/2065/_/971700692/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index
|