Windows Fails 8% of the Time

descubes writes "A Journal du Net article reports that about 8% of Windows sessions require a machine reboot. The relevant quote (translated from french) is: "The average rate of failures requiring a system reboot has been measured at around 8% per session. This number varies widely depending on the version of Windows. Windows 2000 has a failure rate of 4%, and NT4 is at 3%, whereas Windows XP is close to 12%." The study was originally made by Acadys and Microcost and gathered data from 1.2M machines belonging to about one thousand companies over a period of one month in seven different countries."

Comments

Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[garcia]

For once some of us don't have to RTFA! Now when we look at the numbers we go ooooh, look MSFT is teh suxx0r! But look at which versions of Windows tend to fail. NT at 3% and Win2k at 4%. NT and Win2k are being run by people with more of a clue than those running XP. XP was aimed more at the home market while NT and 2k were not nearly as much.

So, maybe the article tells more than the blurb, but it would appear to me that the reason that XP crashes more is that the people who are running it could be partly at fault (ie worms, trojans, poor hardware choices with outdated drivers).

Personally I use 2k at work and XP at home (for my Windows machines) and I can't remember a crash for either. Work is a bit of a stretch as I do shut it down daily but the XP machine hums along just fine without problems.

YMMV.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[ShizCakes]

I came here to say exactly what you said. The amount of clueless people downloading spyware, viruses, and just general crap onto thier computers is ridiculous, and I'm suprised that the failure rate isn't higher. However, if we were to take a look at the professional usage only, where there are IT depts and such supposedly taking care of the machines, I think that the numbers would be drastically reversed.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[aurelian]

Personally I use 2k at work and XP at home (for my Windows machines) and I can't remember a crash for either.

This is about rebooting. A crash is not the only time Windows forces you to reboot. You say you shut down daily - only Windows users would regard that as normal.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[Tenareth]

Our entire user base (Over 1000 machines) has been moved from WindowsNT Workstation and Win2k workstation to Windows XP as a global rollout for our company (40,000+ machines). Given the same userbase, and same admins building the machines we have seen XP behave much worse than NT or 2000 ever did.

This is in a completely controlled environment, where we can use GPO to insure extra software is not installed on the machines, etc... unlike the older installed base.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[mrchaotica]

Fine, don't RTFA, but could you consider reading the summary, maybe?

gathered data from 1.2M machines belonging to about one thousand companies

These weren't home users!

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[linsys]

"I think at one point I had the server up for ~180 days straight"

You say that like it's some accomplishment, well I guess it is for a WinBox, but in My World (*nix world) I would be very disapointed if my boxes where up any less that 180+ days!

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[galaxy300]

Let me be the first to say "180 days? Wow!!!".

Just kidding. Although I do love the story about the Novell server at some University (in Florida, I believe) which had been running for several years with no reboots and no problems. One day some brilliant tech decided to look for the server and realized that it wasn't there. Nowhere to be found.

Fast forward a couple more years, they were doing construction, and found the server had somehow been put in a closet that had been bricked over - meaning that the server had been running without intervention for close to 5 years without a reboot or software updated. Go Novell! Running on Compaq hardware, IIRC.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[Coryoth]

came here to say exactly what you said. The amount of clueless people downloading spyware, viruses, and just general crap onto thier computers is ridiculous, and I'm suprised that the failure rate isn't higher. However, if we were to take a look at the professional usage only, where there are IT depts and such supposedly taking care of the machines, I think that the numbers would be drastically reversed.

According to the article there were no home users involved in this. It was all company workstations from about 1000 European companies. That means it pretty much is all in managed environments with an IT dept looking after it.

The best I can find is this (excuse my babelfish translation) from TFA:

"To also note, without surprise, that 95% of the stations customers are equipped with a Windows environment, version 2000 being prevalent at the professionals. In place under 42% of the stations, this version largely replaced Windows NT 4 which counts nothing any more but 16%. As for Windows XP, it pains to find its public, in particular at the industrialists who choose to 83% for Windows 2000. Only the service companies have 5% of their data-processing park under Windows XP while the general average is around the 2%."

Which is about the best I can find for figures breaking down how the different versions were distributed. It seems like XP was largely uncommon except at service companies (and was then still uncommon), so maybe you could claim low sample size - but there were 1.2 million workstations in the total sample, so I don't think that'll wash either.

If someone with far better French than me could provide a proper translation of the relevant paragraph I would be grateful.

Thanks.

Jedidiah

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[ThosLives]

The reason I don't shut down isn't because I need to keep running or want to waste power. While it is true that shutting down when I don't use my computer would probably save me some electricity dollars, the startup wear-and-tear on the hard drives and even electrical components is greatly reduced by leaving a system on all the time. Parts tend to fail a lot less frequently if you turn them on and leave them on...it's actually surprising the stress you put on even solid state devices during power-on/power-off transients (you ever notice how light bulbs typically burn out just as you turn them on or turn them off? There's a reason for that... check out what happens to current through a simple R-L circuit during step transitions in voltage.). This concept is true even of light and heavy machinery - it's why jet engines are rated on number of start/stop cycles in addition to hours in operation, and why most large industries don't like to stop and start their plants.

So, I keep my system up as much as I can for reliability, not for "ooh look! X days up without a reboot!" bragging rights.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[stratjakt]

The XP box on my desk at work has never crashed by any fault other than my own (testing funky code), but the higher end "gaming" box at home has crashed a number of times. Usually while playing a game.

Personally I blame the craptastic drivers from both nVidia and ATi. They're hell-bent on getting the most flips per flooble and the stability of the drivers suck.

ATi adds a lame new interface (which crashes) called "Catalyst Control Center" while the actual usability of the drivers is swirling down the toilet. All new releases focus on little tweaks in their $500 dollar range cards to make it benchmark fastest in Doom 3, while support for the cards people actually own dwindles.

For instance, if I try to play Doom 3 with anything higher than "Medium" settings, my machine will hardlock. Radeon 9800, no tweaking or overclocking, just the latest "stable" drivers.

This isn't an anti-ATi rant, I had the same bullshit with nVidia.

Barring a hardware faulure, it's virtually always the video drivers fault, since it actually has the power to bring down the system.

I'd say the higher instance of XP bombs reflects it's status as the current PC gaming platform.

I blame nVidia, ATi, and Microsoft for "certifying" their instable, shit drivers. Driver certification really just means your check cleared.

What can they do about it, though? I'd gladly sacrifice a few FPS for a stable machine. But when a driver release gets less "3DMarks" than the one before it, the little kids throw a fit on rage3d and other sites.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[hb253]

I've been using personal computers at home and at work since the early 1980's. Of all the computers I've used in that time, I shut off every one on a daily basis and have never had a failure of any kind.

However, I've had a few servers that stay on all the time lose a hard disk after a restart due to power failures, or other infrequent power downs.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[grub]

It was at least 3 years and at the University of North Carolina according to this page. Search that page for "Server Missing No More".

Unless, of course, there was more than one Novell server walled in at a university for several years... :)

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[mgv]

This is about rebooting. A crash is not the only time Windows forces you to reboot. You say you shut down daily - only Windows users would regard that as normal.

Not true - I'm a mac user, and I shut down alot. Every time I a finished at the laptop I shut down the lid. When I'm ready to work again I have to do a start up - I start by lifting the lid up.

Pretty much the same really.

Not.

Michael

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[geordie_loz]

I'd be interested to know just what you were doing when it crashed. My system tends to be stable unless I'm farting around with low-level stuff or drivers..

My XP box is pretty stable, but I have had it blue-screen (although it is a nice shade of blue in XP), a few times, doing fairly normal things..

I update regularly, and would say that XP seems more stable that any version of windows I've used. But I don't really use it that often, only the odd time when I must use windows and wine does not suffice.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[LoneGunner]

Even in corporations where there is an IT staff, I see computers brought in all the time full of spy-ware and viruses so, you can't say that since there is an IT staff there won't be any problems. In our own environment we used 2k for a few years, and now use XP. I never reboot my computer unless absolutely needed, it runs 24/7. I do development with VS, flash, Photoshop, and several other environments. With 2k I would have to reboot at least once a week to keep things stable sometimes more than once in a day. With XP I only reboot once every 2 weeks to once a month. In my personal experience XP is a much more stable environment.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[Stargoat]

I've been working with XP, 2000, and Windows 98 in a business environment. In an enterprise business environment, where IT controls the PCs, and people who install Yahoo Search Bar and other webtastic crap are fired, the O/S run great. A single, well built build with a good and constantly updating AV program will not fail 8% of the time. That's a load of horse dung.

But in an enviroment filled with Google Bar, Webshots, Gator, Weatherbug and other crap, not including the pure spywear and viruses, the PCs will fail. It has nothing to do with the OS, but everything to do with stupid users, and a lazy and ineffective IT department.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[frp001]

I'm tired of reading Microsoft sponsored research that attempts to make Windows look better than it really is.

As a matter of fact this is not the main subject of the article. The research was carried out by accadys and Microsoft throughout Europe to find out how users used their machines.(The title of the article is about the fact that 28% of user time is spent on messaging/internet -- I wonder if they calculated my time on /.)
Finally the article concludes by saying that Acadys recommends using open source software.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[Phisbut]

If someone with far better French than me could provide a proper translation of the relevant paragraph I would be grateful

Here's a human translation from a French-Canadian

We must also note that, unsurprisingly, 95% of the computers are running on a Windows environment, with version 2000 being the most used among professionals. Win2k, running on 42% of the computers, largely replaced WinNT4, which now only runs on 16%. As for WinXP, it barely found a good public, especially among industrials which prefer Win2k 83% of the time. Only the service companies have 5% of their total computers running WinXP, while the general average is around 2%.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[hopethishelps]

With XP I only reboot once every 2 weeks to once a month. In my personal experience XP is a much more stable environment.

Windows users obviously have a different expectation of "stable" from Linux users. In my office we have just 2 Linux machines but both are heavily used, one for C++ development.

I just ran "uptime" on them. One has been up for 99 days (I remember shutting it down to install a DVD-rom drive about that long ago) and the other has been up for 127 days. Of course I keep them both up-to-date with security patches, but since they're both Debian, that's just a matter of typing apt-get update / apt-get upgrade occasionally. No reboot needed.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[tsa]

Since switching to Debian I've never had a crash either.

Hm. My Linux system (Slackware) crashes regularly. About once every 5 years.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[networkBoy]

What's funny is our IT dept. reccomends that we install the google toolbar for it's pop-up blocking. I simply used Firefox instead, but can not access any intranet sites with it. So for the internal stuff I use IE.
As to the crashing, my XP laptop and Win2K home machines need about a reboot a week on average. My linux boxes and my Win2K "server" (client build) which sees little to no console activity, run for weeks and up without reboots, and all the reboots I've neede to do were because of me.
This leads me to believe that the bulk of Windows is fine and that explorer and the other UI programs are the source of most problems (sans spyware).

-nB

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[smallguy78]

and the type of people impressed by those brags aren't normally the type of people who you want respect from...

I remember a statistic in a Bill Bryson book saying that 2% of the US's yearly electricity use is from workstations left on over night.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[Bull999999]

I had a Win2k server in my garage during the last 3 years. It has rebooted 4 times: 3 power outages, one hardware change.

So you are saying that you never patched that server?

Granted, from personal experience, a well setup Windows machine on good hardware is pretty stable but I believe that the reason why Windows machines cannot acheive ultra long up time is due to the required reboots after certain patches, although 2000 requires less reboots than NT4 and the same thing can be said for 2003 vs 2000.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[cft_128]

I think it's great that Linux can run that stable. But really, outside of bragging rights, does it really matter that your computer is up that long? I'm not trying to bash either side, but there are very, very few cases (IMHO) where a computer needs to be up for 99 days without a reboot.

It is essential that our servers stay up all the time, that goes without saying, but I also leave my laptop on all the time. I hate having to reboot as I lose the state of my work environment: what files I had open and where, what logs I was tailing, the specific command history for terminals, what web pages I had open, etc. I reboot typically on average about avery 3-4 weeks, usually because of an OS patch. I could use some other technologies (like using VNC connection to a server that is stable) but I don't have to and I really like it.

HTPCs (Home theater PCs) also require almost indefinite uptime - you don't want to have to boot a PC to watch TV or a movie, and a crash while watching a movie is not acceptable. I've heard many stories on HTPC forums of people spending days and weeks attempting to track down causes of intermittent crashes. As HTPCs get more prevalent I can only see long uptimes getting more important.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions?

[yerfatma]

At the risk of sounding like I'm defending MS, note that in your case you've had one continuous 4 year session. If it ever crashes, your OS has a really shitty failure rate. Lies, damned lies and statistics.

3rd attempt

[paulhar]

I get about half way through starting my reply before Windows crashes on me caus

English Version

[WhatsAProGingrass]

English

Biased

[-kertrats-]

And what is the reboot rate of various Linux distros? Unless they're willing to do a comparison under the same protocols, I very much hope that no one here points to this as more proof of needing to switch to Linux, even though I know it will come up.

Somewhat misleading

[dtfinch]

If you leave your computer running until it needs a reboot, your "failure rate" by their definition is 100%, even if you reboot only once every 6 months.

No way...

[jmcmunn]

I find it hard to believe Windows XP crashes 12% of the time. I run XP at work and at home. Here at work I am building, compiling, crashing code, running about 20 things at once and I almost never need to reboot. I shut down on weekends, and sometimes at night to save the company some dough, but I rarely need to reboot.

At home, I play games, surf the web, write in MS Office...all of the typical things a normal user would do. Plus I do things that a "power user" might do. Newsgroups, Irc, nothing too great...and I NEVER reboot. I would say on average I need to reboot about once a month when Seti@home decides to get flakey or something. Does that count as needing to reboot...after a month!!?? Then I guess it needs to 100% of the time.

If people need to reboot 12% of the time, then they are doing something wrong. It's not the OS, but more the user in my opinion. XP is a stable system, and does a good job of keeping my machines running.

Win98, however, I would say needs a reboot 50% of the time. The other 50% you have no choice and it dies without a reboot.

Re:A bit too high..

[Zog The Undeniable]

The figures make perfect sense if you consider NT is on SP6a, 2000 is on SP4 but XP is only on SP2. Give them time to work the bugs out etc.

Given that XP isn't just Win2K SP5 but is in fact Win2K with an awful lot of extra chrome tacked on, it was never going to be more stable to begin with.

My French is rusty ....

[rogerz]

... but if the article does not quantify this failure "rate" as mean-time-beetween-failure (MTBF), then the statistic is worthless. 8% of "sessions" requiring reboot is meaningless, without defining how long is a session.

The Windows users are eating plenty of poultry

[ShatteredDream]

in my CS department. The amount of crow that is getting passed around is amazing these days as many are being forced to switch to Linux or MacOS X for class in the 400 levels and they realize "uhhh those UNIX guys were right about Windows." The irony of it is that we Mac users are usually very good at helping them get started with OSX.

Still, we can't blame Microsoft for a lot of the instability since there are so many users out there using terrible and/or outdated drivers. Microsoft cannot be blamed for the quality of the drivers that most Windows users have because they didn't write them.

Of course I will say this about Windows. It is nice for the first few months, but then it just begins to become as sensually appealing as a rotten piece of bait fish left on your back porch for a few days in the sun. My Macs frequently have several times the uptimes of the Windows PCs I hear about and the Windows users are shocked, "why are 8 weeks of uptime, your PowerBook is still fast and usable."

Re:The Windows users are eating plenty of poultry

[krray]

It's the Windows die-hards that I find amusing to watch in the various offices -- with few exceptions (AutoCAD) when their system dies it will be replaced with either a Linux based or a Mac. *Every* Mac convert has come up to me, about a year later, and expressed how happy they are with it once they "got it" ... and that they've purchased a Mac for their home use too.

The statement of not blaming Microsoft for the instability brought about by bad/outdated drivers is horse puckey and a REALLY bad excuse. If the software is failing then IT, and it alone, should fail and be disconnected/ignored by the OS. With Microsoft a bad font can (and will) bring down the ENTIRE house of cards. So yes, I very much place blame squarely on Microsoft's shoulders and due to their inabilities Win2K was the _last_ release that I'm forced to still support.

In the trial days (releasing "other" OS' out to the remote user base) it became very obvious very quickly what was going to happen to the help desk (nearly gone :). Remote Windows users were almost always having some issue, lockup, hang, or crash of some sort. The Mac users ... almost never call.

Bottom line: we're now spending less on licensing, less in support costs, and less in user counter-productivity...which does mean we've had more $$$ to hire a few more people (yeah, that much in savings) to work on what we do in our business.

With Windows you'll find yourself constantly fighting or babying the computer -- with the Un*x's the computer just works for you.

Nice title Mr.Taco

[Mordaximus]

"Windows Fails 8% of the Time"

No. 8% of Windows failures require a reboot. Big difference.

What is worse, is the 20 minute rule

[tod_miller]

Infected in 20 minutes

Out of the box home windows xp has on average 20 minutes (if on a uni network, much less) before it is taken over.

corporate networks should all now be firewalled... shouldn't they?

Re:My take...

[Coryoth]

I always log out of KDE at the end of the session (*), but my machine (home-office workstation) normally stays up until it has to be hardware-serviced or I want to upgrade the kernel. I maxed this in about 100 days. X never locked me up badly, at least not since Xfree 3.1 or (ie, a long time ago).

I'll have to agree there actually. Most recently even when a program has managed to lock X up, it still respects Ctrl-Alt-F1, from which I can kill the offedning program(s) and X bounces back happily. I guess this is the equivalent of Ctrl-Alt-Delete and using the Task Manager in Windows. The Linux method (while less user friendly) has the advantage that you drop right out of X, and hence have full control of your machine again. Trying to haul up the task manager when the GUI is locking can be rather difficult sometimes.

Jedidiah.

Re:why the switch?

[Tenareth]

The company decided that support would be easier if the entire international company ran a single image, allowing for global rollouts of software more easily. This was partially created by some problems with some major rollouts on a global scale because of different versions of Windows behaving so differently.

Also, Microsoft wanted to use us a proving ground for AD on a global scale... however, the switchover has been so painful that we still aren't fully AD enabled. Issues with major incompatibilities with WindowsXP and our in-house developed applications has been a major stumbling block.

There were also several hardware upgrades we had to do due to the increased requirements of XP over 2000 and NT.

How Many Of These Were Avoidable?

[theManInTheYellowHat]

Of the reboots that were done how many could be avoided by knowing how to get out of what caused the lockup? I know that the average user just does a reboot to get the problem solved when ending a task might get them out of a jam.

Prime example of why the STORYIES need modding.

[nlinecomputers]

If every a story itself was a troll this one is it. I hate Windows too but the story is misleading as Taco refers to it. It only 8% of windows FAILURES need rebooting as the solution not an 8% failure rate.

I run both Linux and Windows desktops. I reboot about one every two weeks and then usually it is because I've installed a patch or program that requires a reboot to work. In general most of my apps that I run are stable and I get rid of those that aren't.

X-Windows crashes more often for me the MS Windows does. But at least all I have to do for X is restart the X server. MS Windows I do have to reboot. Both are a pain but a full reboot is more painful.

Mod parent way up Up UP!

[khasim]

"Windows users obviously have a different expectation of "stable" from Linux users."

I've been saying this for YEARS!

A Windows user will say "uptime" and mean "time since I had a blue screen" but will NOT count the daily / weekly / whatever reboots they perform.

If Windows starts to go sluggish, they reboot. But they do NOT consider that a break in their "uptime" NOR do they consider that a crash.

# uptime
08:34:13 up 115 days, 18:12, 1 user, load average: 0.10, 0.04, 0.01

That's because I had to move it a few months ago. Everything is current except the latest kernel.

Now I just KNOW I'll see posts from Windows users talking about their "uptime" and so on. But too many of the Windows patches require reboots. Here are the scenarios:

#1. Unpatched Windows box with high uptime.

#2. Patched Windows box with low uptime.

#3. User who does not understand uptime.