Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 22 Jul 1997 19:45:01 -0600 (MDT)
From:      Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>
To:        "Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com" <michaelv@mindbender.serv.net>
Cc:        Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, dennis <dennis@etinc.com>, Alex Belits <abelits@phobos.illtel.denver.co.us>, isp@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD and NT 
Message-ID:  <199707230145.TAA10643@rocky.mt.sri.com>
In-Reply-To: <199707230003.RAA04041@MindBender.serv.net>
References:  <199707222346.RAA10262@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199707230003.RAA04041@MindBender.serv.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >I started asking around some of my 'NT' expert friends, and if you do
> >'development' on an NT box, it's *very* unstable.  Normal users can take
> >it out doing development, which *never* happens under unix.  These folks
> >have been doing NT development with pre-NT 3 betas, so are not new to
> >this.  But, the 'market' is in NT, so they stick with it and reboot
> >their machines 3-4 times/day, which has been typical behavior for M$
> >OS's since time began.
> 
> So what you're saying is I, and the thousands of people using NT for
> serious development, without crashing it, are imagining things?

I'm saying that there aren't thousands of people using NT for serious
development w/out crashing it.  I asked around to the the dozens of
people I know that develop under NT, and they all say it crashes.
(Though not as often as Win 3.1).  Interestingly enough, I *rarely*
crash Win95, but I guess I'm just lucky.

> I'm willing to accept that there is a buggy driver(s) which is biting
> many people, and causing them lots of instability.

With a Diamond video card, arguably the most common/popular card in
existance?

> pre-NT4 on the same hardware, since the same hardware may have been
> using a driver in NT3 which was outside the graphics subsystem, which
> has been changed to run inside the graphics subsystem.

These folks have been using NT since pre NT3.  NT 3.51 was *much*
stabler than NT 4, but it still wasn't as bulletproof as *nix.  (There
statements, not mine since I have no experience with NT < 4.0)

> However, the fact that many many people are able to do serious
> development on NT without crashes attests to the assertion that it is
> not NT by itself that is the problem.

See above.  I don't buy the statement that 'many people are able to do
development w/out serious crashes'.

> Where is this Java/Visual-Depth patch located?

Look in the knowledge database on the WWW server.  I don't have the
patch off-hand, but Java programs won't run in greater than 8-bit mode
w/out it.


Nate



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707230145.TAA10643>