Slashdot Mirror
Reliability of Computer Memory?
olddoc writes "In the days of 512MB systems, I remember reading about cosmic rays causing memory errors and how errors become more frequent with more RAM. Now, home PCs are stuffed with 6GB or 8GB and no one uses ECC memory in them. Recently I had consistent BSODs with Vista64 on a PC with 4GB; I tried memtest86 and it always failed within hours. Yet when I ran 64-bit Ubuntu at 100% load and using all memory, it ran fine for days. I have two questions: 1) Do people trust a memtest86 error to mean a bad memory module or motherboard or CPU? 2) When I check my email on my desktop 16GB PC next year, should I be running ECC memory?"
That's because I wasn't trolling. Yes, I do know people here on slashdot don't like to hear positive opinions on Vista, but in fact Vista isn't all that bad.
I use Linux exclusively on my desktop pc at home and at work. I've been using Linux for over a decade. When I bought a laptop a year and a half ago, it came with Vista. Vista is IMHO a great improvement over XP. It's not even slow on decent hardware.ÂI have yet to receive my first BSOD since SP1 was released. SP0 gave me a few BSODs, maybe 5 in total.
That being said, I use Linux for work and Vista for play. So the comparison may not be entirely fair.
Isn't having a positive opinion about anything windows the definition of a slashdot troll ;).
Seriously though, my problems with Vista don't even get to the stability stage. There is the UI which basically sux. It makes me search for things which should've stayed in the same place. It is slow on decent hardware. The problem is I don't consider decent hardware to be something an IT'er would buy. I see decent hardware as being what a normal, non-gaming person would buy. It's slower than XP in any case and requires more memory.
I still recommend Windows to regular people however. I won't be their linux helpdesk and windows simply is easier and better for regular people. Mostly this is psychological but that is a really big issue.
It doesn't fly in the face of shit. It shows that one of the few people who had an anecdote about Vista reliability calls a ridiculously inadequate length of up time proof that Vista is reliable. If what the OP says is true, he is the rare exception that got the best Vista has to offer. That "best" is woefully inadequate.
;-)
BTW - You say his point is still valid. What point was that? Was it that in very rare (atypical) cases one can experience reliability from Vista that is only an order of magnitude worse than the typical Linux system? If so, I concede that you are correct, and his point is valid. In rare cases Vista sucks more by only one order of magnitude rather than the typical two+ orders
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Allow me to paraphrase your question: I'm still curious why you need an OS that doesn't have memory leaks and other issues that require you to regularly reboot and restart the degradation process ;-)
The point isn't that while it is true that most people don't need years of uptime, Linux is stable enough that you can have it if you want, and Windows is not so your out of luck if you need the reliability.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun