29 Jan
2002
29 Jan
'02
4:22 a.m.
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(a)kerberos.davies.net.au>
To: <classiccmp(a)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:
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(a)kerberos.davies.net.au
| "If God had wanted soccer played in the
| air, the sky would be painted green"
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 ?