Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 08:11:05 12/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 2000 at 09:26:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >Windows NT was very reliable. Windows 2000 seems a tad less so. I consider >windows 95/98 to be trash. I don't have any ME machines so I can't comment >there. If I had to run windows, it would definitely be NT 4, as we have had >that up in our labs for several years with no problems of any kind. Linux is >all I personally run on the machines I use, and it is also rock-solid and >doesn't crash, period. I find Windows 2000 to be a tad MORE reliable than NT 4, actually. The stability of the Linux kernel is good, but as much as I like Linux, I really have to say that I think it is useless for anything else than server OS and development OS. It has louse harwaresupport and lacks standards in various areas that are extremely important, if you're not only using development tools and server software. I'm looking forward to the day when the rest of Linux is as good as the kernel.
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.