On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 20:38 +0200, Richard Bos wrote: > Op Friday 11 May 2007 20:24:49 schreef Petr Klíma: > > 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. > > As example: we once obtained a computer that had been running windows fine > for > ages. The moment we started installing linux on it, it failed. Indeed it > already failed during the installation! Running a memory check tool showed > that memory was bad => computer to the IT department, they stated that there > was nothing wrong with the system using their tools! After talking a bit > longer the faulty memory got replaced and the machine started to behave > correctly. > > From this we learned that linux uses indeed all resources that it has > available, while MS does probably not....
From my experience, Linux has more of the robustness required to run on shoddy hardware, once you get it up and running, than XP does. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
