Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (2859 mails)

[Mike McMullin <mwmcmlln@xxxxxxxx>]

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: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx