[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....
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 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