 |
 |
They don't crash?!?! (Page 2)
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver, WA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yeah. that bad RAM thing happened to me too. Seems like I've heard about it alot. I wonder how common it really is, and how much it is causing system instability. When I had the problem, I would have Kernel Panics 4-5 times daily. After I swapped out the extra RAM, none. On 3 machines, I can't remember the last "crash."
|
Me
Dual 2.6GHz Intel Xeon | 23" Apple Cinema Display | 13" MacBook | 15" AluBook 1.67 GHz | 1.42 GHz Mac mini | 50" NEC Plasma | Tiger | 80GB iPod Video | 60GB iPod photo | 4GB iPod mini | 1GB iPod shuffle | 4GB iPod nano
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
What exactly is Fire? I've never heard of it.
(
Last edited by ebisix; Jul 19, 2003 at 01:33 AM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: No frelling idea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Eug:
My assessment of stability, in order of best to worst:
Mac OS X.2
Windows XP
Windows 2000
Windows NT 4
Windows 98SE
Mac OS 9
Windows 95
Note though that I rarely ever got BSODs in XP, 2000 or NT. Hell, even with 98SE, once I got my computer configured properly, BSODs were rare. My "stability" is overall system stability, not just lack of BSODs or kernel panics.
ie. With OS X.2 I get programs quitting unexpectedly and some programs locking up from time to time, but a simple force quit and logout/login cures most ills.
With XP an attempted logout/login may not cure hung programs and I'll have to reboot. NT is even worse.
My computers: XP 24/7, NT 24/7, and OS X.2 about 4 hrs per day with sleeps in between.
Overall I'd say that Mac OS X is the most stable OS I've ever used, but XP is pretty good too. (All I could say about Linux is that installing RedHat 6 on my PC was the worst OS experience I've ever had, so I was too turned off of it to give it a fair shake.)
Wow, you've got Win98SE beating out OS9, I haven't experienced that.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: No frelling idea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by ebisix:
What exactly is Fire? Never heard of it. Then again, if someone asked me what a PowerBook was a month ago, I would've had no clue. Glad I stumbled upon some Apple sites. 
Click this
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
(
Last edited by ebisix; Jul 19, 2003 at 01:32 AM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, i was out of town...
Fire's pretty cool... thanks to whoever sent the link for me!
Jason
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I have a Ti800 and running Jaguar. I have never experienced a crashed before.
Although what I have experienced is sometimes Netscape will "Quit Unexpectedly".
But the OS itself has never crashed.
On my PC is use Windows XP professional. Now I haven't experienced a crash in that either.
What I do experience in that is bugs all the time. Where a window pops up asking you if you would like to report this BUG to Microsoft.
Personally though, I like the OSX interface more.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Berkeley
Status:
Offline
|
|
Everything I have exits unexpectedly at least once a day with OSX 10.2.3 -- Pismo 400 (well, actually 399.44 mhz according to the Guru memory test app, and the cache is 159-something instead of 160).
Apple has had it four times, never found anything wrong that would fix these issues.
It's always a KERN_EXCEPTION message in the log file.
Reformatting and reinstalling from scratch doesn't help. None of the hardware tests show anything.
Where next? I could send it back to AppleCare again but .... all they seem to do is install a fresh OS and return it for me to test, and I already know that doesn't help.
|
|
-0-
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
it's probably the older hardware, i would go back to the last build that was stable... 10.2.2? what one do you remember being the most stable?
Jason
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Earth
Status:
Offline
|
|
Macs are VERY stable. I own a few running Jaguar and mine do not crash. The only kernel panic I've seen was due to cheap (bad) RAM. Replaced the RAM, no more problem.
Before installing software, I check to see what the known problems are. For the most part, the software I use works great.
BTW, I do own a PC. Rarely even turn it on now. My Macs are just more elegant and fun to use. 
|
|
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." (Kierkegaard)
"What concerns me is not the way things are, but the way people think things are." (Epictetus)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
Here's one more positive report on the MacOS X KP issue.
I started with OS X when Public Beta came out on an iMac DV+. I've used every version of OS X as soon as it came out and I've also been running Jaguar on my new MDD PowerMac since day 1. In this whole time I've had one single kernel panic. It happened because I wanted to see one in person. There were some instructions to get a KP with the Terminal and it worked. The KP screen was quite nice compared to the one I have on my RedHat Linux box at work.
I have to add however, that I don't use much third-party hardware which can probably cause KPs more often. Faulty RAM does too sometimes.
But I think it's safe to say that if you buy a new Mac, install a new system, don't fool around with "strange" hardware but you get KPs, you've got faulty hadware and should take it in to the dealer.
|
|
•
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top