|
Least secure OS? Linux! | by Bealz | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
It's suprising.. | by Khaar | 2003-01-13 15:06:29 |
| I take offence to that. |
by caffine-iv |
2003-01-13 15:14:44 |
Several times (tho not on todays main board, tho I do recall it in my diary somewhere) I've stated that Windows is infact stable, it's just hte user that screws it up or the manufactoer that chose bad parts that makes it screw up.
Windows is picky about it's hardware, just like Linux is. But Linux either supports hardware or it doesn't, not a halfway inbetween.
_ALL_ computers, regardless of OS, react to heat which is what kills most typical computers. Compaqs, HP's, Gateways, and Dell's all have issues with an insufficient power supply and not enough fans sitting inside a really super small case.
Heat = Electrical resistance = more heat = more resistance = IC's generate bad data = corrupt data being sent over the bus
Some IC's rely on the powered state of a line for a signal. Whether it be 3.3v or 5v. If the resistance brings a 5v line down to within the IC's tolerance for hte 3.3v line, you get corrupt data. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
I'd like to see hte day when someone can | by caffine-iv | 2003-01-13 15:17:08 |
|
You take offense too easily. | by LionsPhil | 2003-01-13 15:19:28 |
|
NT kernel is better | by ozanbaba | 2003-01-13 15:22:48 |
|
XP is still *much* better than 9x/ME | by LionsPhil | 2003-01-13 15:25:20 |
|
ME was hte garbage of MS. | by caffine-iv | 2003-01-13 15:26:41 |
|
but XP has weiard problems still | by ozanbaba | 2003-01-13 15:28:19 |
|
I've not noticed any yet. | by caffine-iv | 2003-01-13 15:28:53 |
|
1 day | by ozanbaba | 2003-01-13 15:31:51 |
|
Huh. | by randomman | 2003-01-13 22:24:03 |
|
i agree but seems like someone | by ozanbaba | 2003-01-13 15:27:07 |
|
They did. ;-) | by Avium | 2003-01-13 20:02:49 |
|
I didn't say it ran as efficiently. | by caffine-iv | 2003-01-13 15:24:04 |
|
I was attacking this: | by LionsPhil | 2003-01-13 15:33:01 |
|
Then explain how I had several months uptime | by caffine-iv | 2003-01-13 15:50:18 |
|
Interesting - perhaps it WAS patched. | by LionsPhil | 2003-01-13 15:52:44 |
|
I didn't say it was perfect either. | by caffine-iv | 2003-01-13 15:56:31 |
|
nothing is perfect | by ozanbaba | 2003-01-13 16:01:19 |
|
You said - and I quote - | by LionsPhil | 2003-01-13 16:02:34 |
|
And it's true. | by caffine-iv | 2003-01-13 16:06:00 |
|
So...you've reverted back to your previous point? | by LionsPhil | 2003-01-13 16:11:11 |
|
You're apearently Stupid. | by caffine-iv | 2003-01-13 16:18:54 |
|
In my own experience, stability improved when... | by swisscheese | 2003-01-13 16:21:08 |
|
Here we go - 95, not 98 | by LionsPhil | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
That article is insane. | by caffine-iv | 2003-01-13 16:10:55 |
|
Which version. | by Avium | 2003-01-13 19:59:08 |
