3 ms·

It's not what I've said. My claim was more in the direction that the OS crashes happened, for properly maintained system, on reliable hardware, starting with 3.

by acqq 7y ago

It's not what I've said. My claim was more in the direction that the OS crashes happened, for properly maintained system, on reliable hardware, starting with 3.11 more like... never. The user space programs did crash, but it was often practically a "feature" of the design goals. Linux? In 1993 kernel was not even v1? And the distributions didn't exist? Linux was a text based toy back then, with nothing for those who needed the user space GUI programs running on 3.11 or 95, and who couldn't afford to have a computer to run the NT which was released in 1993. Since 1993 there was a safe Windows system, anybody using a less safe one, like 3.11, 95, 98, Me did that as a trade-off in order to be able to pay less for the hardware. Or to use a program which had used something that NT didn't have (an Linux surely even less). But even 3.11 already had a stable 32-bit core. Hardware was expensive then. Your memory is definitely not reflecting the actual state of that time.

ncmncm 7y ago
Linux, in fact, had its X Window System practically from the beginning, so your recollection is 100% false. Most people could not use Linux because it did not run Windows programs, or anyway because they did not feel competent to install it, but it needed no more machine than W95. OS/2 needed no more machine either, and would run Windows programs more reliably than Windows could, but cost real money and also had to be installed. NT was pretty crashy back then, too, and a huge resource hog besides, and many Windows programs didn't run on it either. Vista was an even bigger hog. 10 is hundreds of times bigger, but RAM and disk got cheap, so we don't often notice.
- acqq 7y ago
  Your mentioning of Vista from 2007 shows the amount of confusion: the relevant years for comparison in the thread were: Linux, for which no distribution existed before around 1995 at minimum, and no serious software with the features of those written for Windows, and Windows systems for which a stable Windows NT existed since 1993. Since the same year users chose non-NT Windows systems because they needed cheaper hardware. That’s it. And even the non-NT systems were more stable than the confused comments claim. The instabilities were typically bad hardware or bad user software.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by acqq 7y ago

ncmncm 7y ago

Linux, in fact, had its X Window System practically from the beginning, so your recollection is 100% false. Most people could not use Linux because it did not run Windows programs, or anyway because they did not feel competent to install it, but it needed no more machine than W95. OS/2 needed no more machine either, and would run Windows programs more reliably than Windows could, but cost real money and also had to be installed. NT was pretty crashy back then, too, and a huge resource hog besides, and many Windows programs didn't run on it either. Vista was an even bigger hog. 10 is hundreds of times bigger, but RAM and disk got cheap, so we don't often notice.

acqq 7y ago
Your mentioning of Vista from 2007 shows the amount of confusion: the relevant years for comparison in the thread were: Linux, for which no distribution existed before around 1995 at minimum, and no serious software with the features of those written for Windows, and Windows systems for which a stable Windows NT existed since 1993. Since the same year users chose non-NT Windows systems because they needed cheaper hardware. That’s it. And even the non-NT systems were more stable than the confused comments claim. The instabilities were typically bad hardware or bad user software.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]