Petr Klíma wrote: > Aaron Kulkis wrote: >> I think it's more of an observation effect. >> >> Windows is so buggy, that when hardware errors do occur, >> it's just background noise in the all-too-typical crashing >> and failing... > > Well, I don't agree at all. What I experienced was correct Windows > behaviour (no errors, at least none reported) while in LInux programs > crashed now and then without apparent reason. > > I agree with Carlos that LInux most probably uses hardware more > aggressively, something like leaving less time between successive > actions therefore leaving less time for the things (signal levels > etc.) to settle down. That wouldn't be a problem for perfectly stable > hardware whose critical operating frequencies are quite higher than > the real operating ones (e.g. all transients finished soon enough). > Once you got hardware which is operating at (or behind) the edge, you > may get anything. >
What utter nonsense. Memory read & write, I/O performance etc., are determined entirely by the hardware, with some involvement by BIOS settings. There is nothing that Linux or Windows or any other OS can do, that will change that. Further, interrupts are used by hardware, to tell the OS when it's ready for something else. Back in the DOS, Win3, Win95 & Win98 days, there were some differences in the way the hardware was accessed, i.e. polling, timing loops etc., that a *REAL* OS, such as OS/2 or Linux didn't use. A real OS wouldn't waste CPU time that way. It would use interrupts. Now, if there was a problem in the interrupt system, then it would show on a real OS, but not DOS & Windows. Software can also be written to ignore errors, so if that was done with Windows, but not Linux, then Linux is more likely to find errors and therefore more likely to be reliable. -- Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
