Win2K: More reliable?

— 1:25 AM on February 21, 2000

According to this Segfault story, Win2K is "more reliable, crash wise." Heh heh. (Thanks to discussion board regular Rancid_Meat for the link.)

I've been running Win2K on a couple of my PCs for a while now, and although I've never hit the 80-some days uptime my Linux box has, it has been fairly reliable. One of the machines, in fact, has pushed past a month of solid uptime, believe it or not. That makes it look better than NT4, and Win2K definitely doesn't require as many reboots for config changes. However, try to run Win2K with the big stuff like OpenGL or, worse yet, Direct3D, and all bets are off. I've seen random lock-ups on the desktop with later revisions of NVIDIA's TNT2/GeForce drivers, as well. Any of you all running Win2K? Is it "more reliable, crash-wise" for you?

Tip: You can use the A/Z keys to walk threads.
View options

This discussion is now closed.