New Via 41n1!

[Dogbert]

I always say that the 'better' and newer the software is, the more flashy and glamorous the crash will be

[WyWyWyWy]

Obviously you guys haven't tried NetBSD, or even FreeBSD.

MacOS 9... hmm.. no comment. But MacOS X is rock f solid!

[Gurm]

MacOS X is only "rock f solid" if you consider "crashing once every 24-48 hours" to be "solid".

And OBVIOUSLY you don't know us very well. BSD ain't all that, either.

- Gurm

[SteveC]

Originally posted by Gurm
MacOS X is only "rock f solid" if you consider "crashing once every 24-48 hours" to be "solid".

And OBVIOUSLY you don't know us very well. BSD ain't all that, either.

- Gurm

What's weeks, or months then? I've had NT4 and Win2k boxes running for 4, 5, 6 months or more!

[RichL]

I used to have a Banyan system that had an uptime of 800 days. It ran on a proprietory platform (Banyan BNS) with a 68000 as a CPU. Frequently CPU utilisation would hit 800%, but it never crashed.

[Indiana]

The good old MacOS7.5 is quite hard to crash if run on a 68k CPU. Put a PowerPC in and you WILL have major stability issues due to 68k emulation issues. MacOS9 was not good stability wise. MacOS X is better stability-wise but even more bloated and slow.

The last time I saw WinXP crashing was only two days ago when a friend of mine played back some mp3s from a Firewire HD and the cable got loose... Sheesh, a total system crash just because the mp3-player (WinAMP, not the crappy version 3) lost the connection to the HD and this on a quite clean XP install (there was not much installed except Office, WinAMP and Acrobat). Well maybe it was due to his soundcard drivers (Creative, of course...)

[Gurm]

Good old MacOS was stable until you ran apps, at which point it crashed. A lot.

- Gurm

[KeiFront]

OS-X is pretty stable but definatly not "rock solid" only had 3 or 4 crashes and I once got a Kernel Panic .