Joseph L. Casale wrote:
>> Maybe today. How long has it been that you could start something on a
>> windows box and expect it to still be running a year later? People
>> runing unix/linux have expected and achieved that for decades.
>
> A long time:)
> Windows _is_ reliable, what isn't reliable is the myriad of cheap sh!t
> hardware some people expect to work and cheap sh!t software some people
> wonder why windows runs poorly with.
>
> Linux breaks just as hard with bad software.
>
>> How long has that been?
>
> Maybe 15 years?
>
>> If you forget history, you are doomed to repeat it.
>
> Well, I have never had bad history with windows since nt3.51 or nt4 days.
> It broke when I did stupid things, but ran for a long time when I had
> good hardware and knew what I was doing.
You must have never done much with NT or pre-SP2 win2k. I couldn't keep
it running with our applications for more than a week or so at a time.
After NT SP6a and Win2k SP2, things got much, much better with no change
in the application load or hardware, so you can't tell me the OS wasn't
buggy back then.
> Thankfully my history is repeating
> itself:) I've had a 2003 DC running at one place for so many years, I cant
> even begin to imagine when that thing was put in service. It hum's right along
> side some sun & centos machines:)
Yes, 2003 is OK. But I've still got a box running RedHat 7.3 from way
before that that has never crashed and has had uptimes as long as 4
years (had to shut it down to move it a few times).
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com