[rc5] bored? No, Windows 95!

Matt J. Gumbley csa49 at keele.ac.uk
Thu Jun 5 13:57:56 EDT 1997


At 03:31 05/06/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>Windows 95 crashes? It's more stable then a Mac
>
>I have not (literally) had to restart my heavily used 60MHz PowerMac in 
>over a year (I'm dead serious).  In a related note, just tonight the Win 
>'95 machine I was working on had 4 separate "Illegal instruction" errors, 
>from Netscape and Word, the last one requiring a restart.  Soo.... I must 
>respond: Mac crashes?  It's more stable than Windows 95.  :o)

Quoted from "Software failures: follies and fallacies", IEE Review March
1997, Les Hatton says:

"To give some feeling of the failure rates of [PCs and software], table 1
shows my own experience, clocked up over a period of years. Each time my
own computer fails, I log the reason and effect in a spreadsheet....

System                          Defects
Windows 95 + MS Office Pro      1 defect every 42 mins; 28% reboots
Mac OS + MS Office              1 defect every 188 mins; 56% reboots
various flavours of UNIX        < 1 per year; no reboots
Linux                           none yet recorded in 3 months of medium load."

He doesn't say exactly what he rates as a "defect". His Win95 experience is
based on "around 6 months use but the defect rate is getting worse."

Matt

Matt Gumbley        | Email:  | 
Research Assistant  | csa49 @ |                Happy?
Rm 106, Comp. Sci.  | keele . | 
Dept., Keele Univ.  | ac . uk |  [These are my views, not necessarily
+44 (0)1782 583438  |         |    those of .cs.keele.ac.uk -- MJG]
----
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at llamas.net with 'unsubscribe rc5' in the body.



More information about the rc5 mailing list