On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Vishal Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I remember many years ago of people on the Internet with the same > story. The thing back then is that Linux+GCC "stress" and utilise RAM > much more "efficiently" thereby almost always touching all bits and > triggering the problem. I'm guessing you have Windows XP and if you > tried Vista you might get the same problem due to things like ASLR > (Address Space Layout Randomisation) and what not. > > Ah, just Googled and found this link: > http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/docs/faqs/GCC-SIG11-FAQ > > Snippet from the link: > > " QUESTION > > Nothing crashes on NT, Windows 95, OS/2 or DOS. It must be something > Linux specific. > > ANSWER > > First of all, Linux stresses your hardware more than all of the above. > Some OSes like the Microsoft ones named above crash in unpredictable > ways anyway. Nobody is going to call Microsoft and say "hey, my > windows box crashed today". If you do anyway, they will tell you that > you, the user, made an error (see the interview with Bill Gates in a > German magazine....) and that since it works now, you should shut up. > Those OSes are also somewhat more "predictable" than Linux. This means > that Excel might always be loaded in the exact same memory area. > Therefore when the bit-error occurs, it is always excel that gets it. > Excel will crash. Or excel will crash another application. Anyway, it > will seem to be a single application that fails, and not related to > memory. > What I am sure of is that a cleanly installed Linux system should be > able to compile the kernel without any errors. Certainly no sig-11 > ones. (** Exception: Red Hat 5.0 with a Cyrix processor. See > elsewhere. **) > Really Linux and gcc stress your hardware more than other OSes. If you > need a non-linux thingy that stresses your hardware to the point of > crashing, you can try winstone. -- Jonathan Bright > ([EMAIL PROTECTED])" > Wow Vishal thanks for the link. While i agree about the different resource-usage policies of the two kernels, does it warrant an order of magnitude difference in stability under the circumstances. Anyways, mine is a laptop, and i'll see if i can atleast refit the ram. Maybe a loose connection/dust somewhere? -- ubuntu-in mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-in
