Every one always crys about windows being less then stable...........well this is ...

[oblivion]

What I think,and my experiance with it.........I know from my experiance that windows 98 is perfectly stable unless you have hardware issues.............I have not had but maybe one or two BSOD's in the last 6 months.....and they were both due to OCing to high............I feel that if windows is crashing on your system....then your system is not stable.......it is not windows.....I do agree that it is not as stable as linux or NT.........but it is very stable in a properly functioning computer setup...I hate to hear people say......."I crash all the time...it is because of windows"...no it is not............it is because your box is having issues(or maybe you F*&ked up your intall of windows).........
Hell the computer I ad built before that crashed all the time.......every day I got BSOD's.......until I had learned that the guy who helped me build it set the k6-2's voltage .2 too low..........after I remedyied that I never even had a BSOD for like 8 months..............

So stop crying about windows being unstable.....and fix your computer.......or start running linux.

[OuTpaTienT]

I agree about Windoze stability. On a perfectly stable and running PC, then Windoze is (or at least can be) very stable as well.

Netscape, OTOH is a different story. I'm getting extremely fed up with it's inablity to just function on a daily basis.

[arn]

Yea, I don't crash unless I do something dumb, like trying to O/C to high. Sometimes when I am online it will do some goofy things but never when offline. Even the games don't give me trouble anymore.

One of the better programs I installed was RamPage.It keeps some memory free all the time. If I start an application it will free up enough ram to run it smooooothly.

arn

[seti]

The comment that NT and Linux are more stable itself denotes that the OS plays a large roll in stability. Of course every little part and setting can effect stability, but I would contend that the OS is the largest factor. Win98 can be stable...but please, telling people it's all there fault that Windows crashes seams silly.

System stabilty is a weird issue. My system has been remarkably solid for quite some time...and this is the longest I've gone without a clean install in the last year. I've also installed and unistalled so much **** this time around. In the last month I've had 1 BSOD and a few problems that I've had to do normal restarts to fix.

[This message has been edited by seti (edited 04-06-2000).]

[oblivion]

OS does play a part in stability....but that part becomes greater with an unstable setup.....I am not saying it is all thier fault....but every copy of windows is the same,and it works perfectly well if you have a stable hardware setup.....why do not we just say that windows 98 is more sensitive to
hardware,instead of stuff like...."windows is why my computer keeps crashing"..

I have a friend that just got an athlon setup,and she is telling me that she gets BSOD's all the time,every day....while playing games and such.......I am like "girl,you obviously are having hardware issues that need to be worked out" and she is like "no I do not,my setup is perfect.....it is windows fault".....
Well I know that it is not windows fault....I have a friend that has the exact same setup,except he has a different HDD and moniter...he is running fine............

Anyways I like windows 98,better then win2k(AFIK) because it is so compatible with every thing,and games perform so **** wel on it..................I will get windows ME when it hits for sure.......I think that win2k support will always be lacking...if that changes I will install it tommorow.
(when I get another box up and running I will install NT/win2k/linux (one of those)

[oblivion]

As far as linux and NT being more stable.............the compatibility and plug-n-play and general ease of use comes at a price with win98........the price is that you need to have good hardware that has been setup well........it is picky...on the other hand if you want a more stable advanced OS such as the afore mentioned "rocks" do not use win98.........do not even bother..but I find that most of the people that complain all the time about win98,do not know how to use NT or linux.....
(I am linux impaired)

[Biff]

Yeh, I gotta agree to that usually. most of my problems I creat myself, but there have been glitches that Mr Softie has had to fix, all in all I'm a happy camper with my Win98SE. I can however understand people who are upset about there win98 (original)

[jadinolf]

I, too, am happy with 98SE and also 98 ran fine.

Have it on 4 computers with absolutely no problems.

Just upgraded to SE because it was there

[NavyDood_ F/A18_Mech]

I really have no quirks with Win98.

I.E. 5.01, Outlook Express, and Directx 7.0a work with out a glitch on my system.

The wifes computer has weird things happen with Netscape 4.7 installed on it. But she prefers Netscape, so that is that. he he


Jim

[seti]

It's totally within MS's power to create an robust(not as hardware/softwear sensitive) OS based on NT technology with broad support and consumer acceptance. Things could be better than win98.

I think that's why it is common for people to exagerate windows 95 and it's boxed patches problems and cry about windows being less stable than the other OS solutions that are unviable to most end users due to lack of support.

If nt or linux, or any other OS for that matter is better...other than support...of course I'm going to ***** about haveing to use windows, even if it's not that bad.



[This message has been edited by seti (edited 04-06-2000).]

[bigslammer]

yeah it's not that bad. basically the only problems I get are from poor drivers and/or beta drivers.

[jman01pa]

I have no issues with Windows. Most problems I encounter I blame on the operator not the operating system. I have never had the BSOD on my own system unless I messed up and have always been able to resolve it. Of course this my opinion.

J http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[wtp]

IT'S NOT WINDOWS, YES I AGREE, IT'S STOOPID HARDWARE THAT DON'T WORK RIGHT. OH YAH, BUT I HATE VIRTUAL MEMORY. SLOOOOOOW.

[shadow]

I've begun to agree with you since using a program called motherboard monitor. I see now what the voltages are doing and suspect that most of my crashing experiences are due to unstable power. I was surprised to see no adjustment in my power supply. I figured, ok, a supply is a bit low, I'll just go in and find the adjustment...nope, not that easy. Most electronic equipment has plenty of adjustments, whats with the computer power supply with none?

[oblivion]

shadow.....I do believe they are sold already maxed out to the safest maximum

[shadow]

Any electronics usually have adjustments to compensate for changed values of components, heat. etc. It is very uncommon to find a tv, vcr, etc. with no adjustment for the power supply since modern circuits require such tight tolerences on voltages. So thats why I was surprised to find no adjustments in a computer supply. A 5 volt supply running at 5.5, 4.6 or worse isn't acceptable and will be bound to cause problems somewhere.
Thats my theory.

[Richard_Cranium72]

Most of my issues have been garbage that I add in the pewter. At one point I'd formatted so many times that I posted at HP that to "Only add one program per week to see if it caused bsod's or IPF's". I like Gozilla and others, you gotta learn what actions NOT to do in order not to start problems. Many times, waiting out the first sign of freeze not moving the mouse or kbd for a full minute or two and let the machine sort it all out restores operation. DrVette

[Menestheus]

I look at it this way... with Win95/98, sure I had a few more "fender-bender" crashes that with WinNT.

But I'll take my 3 fender-benders on Win95/98 that only require a re-boot to "fix" (over my co-workers WinNT head-on collisions that result in major down-time) anyday!!

[CMonster]

I have found Windows of all flavors to be perfectly stable - as long as you are not doing anything with it.

But many times there are poorly written programs that dont mesh well with Windows or other programs/drivers on the system. I have one particular photo suite that I really like but it hates Internet Explorer the system sill almost always blue screen if both are running, with Netscape it seems to be no problem.

I've crashed um all - DOS, Win 3x,9x,NT,2K, Linux, and BeOS...

Nothing's perfect..

[krusty the klown]

Hehe, CMonster:

Quote:

I have found Windows of all flavors to be perfectly stable - as long as you are not doing anything with it.

That just about sums it up!!!! http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

Although I have known NT lock up when running a screensaver, there was a hardware configuration problem on that machine.

[Algee7]

I've always stood by silently watching everyone bash Windows. I, personally, think it's great! I hadn't ever touched a PC until I built mine in Nov. 98. Was instantly amazed at how easy and friendly Win98 is. All my probs were mostly hardware related,too.
Also, think about this... People love to criticize the number of patches for Win95; they don't stop to think that it's because most patches are to make it compatable with hardware introduced after '95 was created... for instance, the AMD patch: there weren't any 350+ AMD chips back then. So why b*tch about it not working with them w/o a patch... MS cannot see into the future to cover everything anyone else will come up with after they release their OS! Why not, instead, blame AMD for not making the chip work with the OS..?

Just my 3cents...

[stylin19]

whoa..where did all the love come from? ...next we'll be singing "kumbya".. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

The bug fixes..are they for the OS or the integrated apps ? MS-EXCHANGE wasn't hardware...but it wasnt the OS either, but shared files got updated.

this site could put this thread in a better perspective:

walbeehm's win95/98 updates (http://www.walbeehm.com/win95upd.html)

I like the stability/speed of Win98FE now, using the Win95 shell with Win98. I have installed it using 98lite v3.0.RC2..no stinking integration, no stinkin activex, no stinkin directx, no stinkin Internet explorer, no stinkin Outlook, no stinkin webification. All these things are now OPTIONAL.
Life is good !

[danb4]

I gotta agree with C'Monster, most any operating system is stable until you run something.

Gotta say I'm a bit offended when someone suggests that my overclocked Celeron-7inch desk fan cooled- case open collection of computer show bargins has anything to do with stability. I prefer to blame it on Microsoft, that's the most simple explanation. Could it be that hardware, software, and operating system all play a role in system stability? Nah........

By the way, when folks say "I haven't crashed in 6 months" what I hear is "I only run well written programs" or "I only run 2 or 3 programs at once" or "I never come close to the limits of my CPU and RAM" My Win98 computer does crash occasionally, but with 8 pay to surfs, multiple downloads, Winamp, IE, Word, Communicator,Zone Alarm, NAV, and about 15 other apps running....I don't complain. Folks, if your Win98 computer isn't crashing, I'm happy for you. But personally, I could use some more stability when multi-multi tasking. My computer never crashes with only one app running. But that isn't how I use it.

[Andy_L]

Linux , Win 2000, and NT all use virtual memory, they just call it a swap file.