Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 16:52:03 12/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2000 at 11:11:05, David Rasmussen wrote: >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.