It's amazing how stable the win$ucks platform is given the principle
that it does not reclaim allocated memory back to the OS if it is
not absolutly certain it's safe! Ok, you're left with a memory leak
there, but you can always reboot the bastard every other day ;=)
stability will go quite a few microsecs this way ................
Sipke de Wal
------------------------------------------------------------
http://xgistor.ath.cx
------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Huw Davies <Huw.Davies_at_kerberos.davies.net.au>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Here I Am
> At 07:38 AM 23/01/2002 -0700, emanuel stiebler wrote:
> >Jay West wrote:
> > >
> > > There is something to be said for not just trying to
> > > run on everything under the sun - and that directly translates into
> > > stability of the OS.
> >
> >So, suddenly windows runs stable, just because they support x86 only ?
>
> Well NT on Alpha was significantly more stable than NT on Intel mainly
> because there were only a limited number of supported (or even available)
> configurations. What amazes me about Windows is not that it crashes often
> but that it runs at all given the mix of hardware that it attempts to support.
>
> Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies_at_kerberos.davies.net.au
> | "If God had wanted soccer played in the
> | air, the sky would be painted green"
>
Received on Tue Jan 29 2002 - 12:22:50 GMT