[CLUE-Tech] (In)Stability of X?

[Randy Arabie]

On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:

> I honestly can't compare my experience to XP/2000 either, since
> I've never used either one. Perhaps they're more stable than the
> previous versions, but I'd swear I could bluescreen 95/98/NT
> by looking at 'em cross-eyed.

While I have not used X much in the last two years, my memories of 
prior use are still fond.  My experience was on a RH5.x - RH6.x 
systems with XFree86 v3.x.  I found the X system stable, and most 
problems were with apps.  Usually they just bombed.  I can only recall 
one or two occaisions where the X server itself locked/crashed.

I have used Windows 9x - 2000 (including NT) at work quite extensively.
I found, after using Linux, that my abilities to crash Windows improved 
dramatically!  I suppose I picked up some habits that I've tried to carry 
over to Windows.  I tend to open many apps and then switch between them 
as necessary.  This really thrashes Win9x systems, depends on the Service 
Pak for NT, and is usually OK on 2000 if you don't run out of RAM.  I 
think I've only locked/crashed 2000 a dozen or so times in the last 1.5 
years.

The nice thing about X is it can crash, but your box is still running. 
IF Windows crashes, you've lost EVERYTHING, you gotta reboot.  I suppose 
a Windows advocate would argue that the problem is not the OS, but the app. 
Which may be true, you probably can run Windows with many days of uptime 
if you don't run any apps.  I guess the protected memory improvements in 
2000 have made things better.  But not good enough (for the price), IMHO. 
-- 
Cheers!

Randy

================================================================
Randy Arabie
GnuPG Key Info -- 

 Fingerprint: 7E25 DFA2 EF72 9551 9C6C  8AA6 6E8C A0F5 7E33 D981
 Key ID: 7C603AEF
 http://www.arabie.org/keys/rrarabie.gnupg
================================================================