When is stable really stable ?

[The PIT]

Reading a review lately had this statement in it. " the system was completly stable however sometimes I couldn't get into the bios screen or Windows 2000 would hang on startup "
I always find this rather amusing plus posts you see occainsionaly which start saying I'm overclocking and the machine is completly stable. As soon as you see this you know whats coming next, however when I run x program the machine hangs.
So what is stable? I would define it as the machine runs properly without bombing out unless I do something stupid or your running a peice of software that is known to be unstable and everything else runs okay.
It seems theres a new type of stable devoloping in computing, the unstable stability or partial unstable stable.
Anyway I can say my Computer is stable Oh shit it just craaaaaaasssssssshed.

[dZeus]

if you can run DeltaForce 1 for 2 hours straight without crashing, I consider a system stable.

Even the slightest instability causes this game to crash.

Before I lapped my Celeron 366, I could run at 550MHz (@2.1v), and run Q3A all day... however, as when started DeltaForce, it would crash within 5 (!!) minutes...

Now, after lapping it twice , and using a GOlden Orb, it works fine.

[Thundrchez]

To get my thumbs-up of rock solid stability, it needs to go for a month without crashes. This includes a lot of UT . (Mind you, that is not turned on 24/7, but used for several hours every day.)

However, I did have an ol Celery 300A -> 450 system for about 2 years that finally bit the dust. Nothing had changed in it for about 2 months of solid use, and then there was all kinds of video garbage littering the screen. It died in such a way that I thought my G400 was going out on me, but it actually turned out to be the motherboard. That is the rare exception, though.

Rule #1 of overclocking is that if strange things and assorted crashes start happening, clock it back down to it's speced speed.

[Rags]

Basically, if you are running seti, media player 7 and are VC++, don't blame the hardware for crashes.

I do this particular combination quite often, sometimes winamp is there intead of MP7, but still I have never had a crash when doing so. This is in win2k, btw. Still haven't had a lockup.


Rags

[The PIT]

How many posts do you see from people that haven't got a stable system and then overclocked and then ask for help.
At the moment I'm running at a Gig up from 800mhz just had to raise the voltage to 1.75v and it's stable. Under full load the cpu temp is at 32c case temp 20c room temp the same. If in the heat of summer it starts to crash I'll back off a bit but I don't see that happening.
One thing though windows is lot better than it used to be.

[Jorden]

Just read the majority of people asking for help here, TP

"My system is rock solid, but for the occassional crash"

"I haven't had any crashes lately, just a problem with my Explorer"

"My system runs stable, no IRQ conflicts, no BSODs, but I have this problem.... "

etc.

[SteveC]

When is stable really stable ?

When there's horses and hay in it.

------------------
Cheers,
Steve

"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

[Wombat]

>A lockup IS generally hardware related, I wouldn't dispute that. When you use your computer all day long without a problem and start one program that takes down the machine then it's the program.

But that's not too hot either. No single program should be able to take down the machine.

[impact]

With the possible exception of a government-funded application killer programmed specifically to do so...

[Wombat]

I understand. It still shouldn't be possible. I've heard they've gotten better with W2K, but...

[AlgoRhythm]

Sorry, I can't resist...

When it's runnin' Linux!!!

AlgoRhythm

[Gurm]

AlgoRhythm,

Let's change the question to:

When is stable stable... AND useful?

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[Wombat]

Gurm,
When is the last time you even touched a recent Linux distribution? The desktop situation is nice, and getting better all the time. And the GUI interface is better than MS's. Yes, better. It can look and feel just like Windows if you wanted it to, but why limit yourself like that? I only wish the standard shortcuts I use were on Windows machines. And I'd rather have a complete newbie start with Linux on a machine. It works just dandy, but if something were broken, I could log in remotely, check it out for myself, and fix it.
Stop belitting everyone that disagrees with you, and at least let their opinions possibly even carry some weight. I know it's hard for you in your omniscience, and if-it-isn't-Intel-and-SCSI-it's-crap mentality, but it's getting really old. You seem like a decent enough guy, and I really wish you luck with your growing family and such, but you get to be so damn abrasive here.

[The PIT]

All I can say about Linux is throw it out to general public and see how many get in a twist with it. A lot would. It's getting better but it's still a long way to go. As for Linux not crashing don't worry it does. Looks better a matter of opinon dont forget you can change the look of windoze. If you want to trash it, simulate a power failure while it's doing something. Earlier versions of Redhat 5.0 to 6.0 used to good at dieing at this point when you rebooted.
Sometime I'll put mandrake back on at Work but I'm too busy sorting out users that can't find the start button in win9x and if they can't find that they got've got no chance with Linux.

[Jorden]

Originally posted by SteveC:
When there's horses and hay in it.

You took the words out of my keyboard, Steve
But wouldn't there be an ox, an ass and a crib be in there as well? Or is it too early?

Jord.