* Randall R Schulz (03-04-01 17:10 +0100) > At 06:42 2003-04-01, you wrote: >>* Hannu E K Nevalainen (garbage mail) (03-04-01 11:30 +0100) >>>> >> >>> IMO the sense of it is still there, even in NT. Can't tell about XP - but I >>> would be surprised if the changes were that many. >> >> XP is the first rocksolid Windows OS. > > Hardly. > > NT 4 and 2000 have always been perfectly stable and reliable for me, > running for days and weeks on end without trouble.
For me too. But I also had "issues" where for example an NT server Kernel bluescreened - and *ate its whole C-Drive*. I've seen my NetWare server complaining about "duplicate MAC addresses"[1] - *while my NT servers where already silently rebooting*. 2000 was better but premature. >>> I've been running _well known_ applications on NT that misbehaved >> every day. >>> >> But they didn't normally crush the whole system. > > "Crush?" "Bring the 'system' (OS and all other running applications) down." Thorsten [1] Okay, my fault, but nonetheless -- Content-Type: text/explicit; charset=ISO-8859-666 (Parental Advisory) Content-Transfer-Warning: message contains innuendos not suited for children under the age of 18 -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
