He does not hate Windows he hates the fact that some PC's come with it from what I can gather. A PC can be faster than a Mac but you need a bloody good PC like Steve Said there is no shitty Mac. Mac OS X is not UNIX it is UNIX like. It's actually BSD which is the nearest thing to the closed source UNIX now. Year sure it's more secure than Mac OS X but 3x more in your face!
So far the guy in this video has said pretty much nothing incorrect. The person that thinks he was wrong is actually wrong.
BTW stability is not an issue in windows. If it was, our Exchange server which handles about 150 users would be going down all the time and its been up nearly 2 years without a crash or reboot. Have the screenshot of the uptime (or rather the idletime) to prove it. If you can provide me with a link or screenshot of any OSX box being up that long, I'd love to see it.
'That may explain why it is impossible for Linux, Solaris and HP-UX to show up with as impressive numbers of consecutive days of uptime as BSD -- even if these operating systems actually run for years without a reboot. But it does not explain why Windows is nowhere to be found in the top 50 list. Windows does not reset its uptime counter. Obviously, no Windows-based web site has been able to run long enough without rebooting to rank among the top 50 for uptime.'
apparently, your server might be running such a small amount of data (relatively speaking)that ANY os would behave as it does. i'd love ta see that screenshot.
Its actually serving 150 users for email and the mailboxes are stored on a 1.5TB SCSI array. You'd be surprised at how much data goes through a mail server in a busy company. I'll post a video response.
Did you read what I said? Our exchange 2K3 box has been up for 2 years without a reboot, freeze or crash. If windows was inheritly unstable, it would never be able to spend 2 years serving email for 150 users without so much a hiccup. The problem is that there are a lot of dumb users who dont know what they are doing, lot of garbage software that people install, lots of viruses that might infect a box if its not properly maintained and lastly crappy hardware out there. Windows by itself is fine
No let me take this one step further. Infact what I'm saying is that Windows is MORE stable than OSX and many flavours of Linux.
uptime. netcraft. c0m Number 2 and 12 are windows boxes. I dont even see OSX anywhere. There are dozens of BSD boxes below the windows boxes in that list.
uptime, by itself, is not a good measure of stability. on a non-used box, you may get a great uptime, but it really means nothing. usage is an integral part of it.
The uptimes in the list are web servers. They are doing something. The exchange server at my work is also serving mail for 150 users and sometimes with very large attachments. Its also running Trendmicros exchange server antivirus so cpu usage will be higher than just doing mail.
Anyway you can say what you want about windows instability, but I'm looking at first hand experience of them being rock solid. Its proper setup and config that makes any OS stable or unstable.
Thanks for the link, but its a discussion thread by nobody in particular providing no facts...just some opinions on what they would run.
The link I provided showing the uptimes are fact...they are measured times of real machines. I also have a screenshot of our exchange server showing that its been up for ages. I trust those as they are not an opinion :)
Interesting. With Windows posting higher on average in uptime than OSX in this link and windows being fairly close to Linux and BSD I thought to my self something...then I read exactly what I was thinking.
"One of the reasons for lower uptime for Windows is the reboots needed for Windows after patches, updates and installations."
So the uptime is close even with so many updates and reboots. That means its actuall crashing LESS than BSD or Linux. Its just time lost for software updates!
you do realize that other os's don't need to reboot after patches updates and installations? including osx. why osxisn't higher, i don't know. but I will find out. but thanks for admitting why windows is so low
are you saying reboots are needed as much in osx as in windows. I agree, that occasionally, it will require rebooting, but not near as often as windows does
Well I will say less, but not far less. My vista machine for example doesnt require as many reboots for updates when compared to NT4 or Win2k for example.
The discussion is about stability. Uptime is a good measure of stability. If windows machines are posing decent uptimes even though they have to reboot more for updates, chances are they would stay up just as long as Linux or BSD boxes if automatic updates were disabled.
Are you even reading? Come on man just read and comprehend. If you cant figure it out, then just go back to school.
"The discussion is about stability. Uptime is a good measure of stability. If windows machines are posing decent uptimes even though they have to reboot more for updates, chances are they would stay up just as long as Linux or BSD boxes if automatic updates were disabled."
yes, I am reading, you ignorant pissant. ok, for the purposes of this discussion, state what your definition of 'stay up', is, then i shall tell you mine.
higher than an OSX based xserve acting as a file server. Heck it doesnt even have to run anything. Just has to be there...yet its going down I'd say once every 2 months and needs a reboot. Thats OSX without any additional software... Like I said OSX needs no help to crash. Can do it all by itself.
Loads can be anywhere from 3% up to 100% and varies from time of day. Does that help you? Didnt think so....because you have no idea what you're talking about. How come you're not asking me about the memory usage? Are you under the impression that all crashes are cpu load related? If so, then I really know you're clueless.
After certain updates but not all. Reboots have nothing to do with the OS's stability by the way. If I decide NOT to update a windows box and leave it running as is, thats ok as long as I dont specifically need any of the fixes in the updates.
no, that's fine. i didn't remember you stating that, before. I know how you are doing your windows side of this but how are you comparing it to all of these other operating systems? personal experience, as that is your favorite form of basis?
Doesnt matter how many. of that 0.9%, most of the time, it was below the windows uptimes. If OSX is so stable and its rebooted even less for updates, every single instance should be higher in uptime than a windows box but it isnt. Infact most of the time it was below.
Please show me where I said it was the best. Please grow up and dont act like you're 12 years old.
If you go to previous posts, you will see that I said that I think Windows is infact more stable than OSX and many flavours of linux. That statement does not imply it is THE BEST.
How so? HOw is it far less when the numbers are THAT close yet the document itself says that the windows box also includes reboot time for updates. If you remove that from the equation, I'm willing to bet that it will be near the top of that chart.
One things for sure, its overall higher than OSX in the list....
it could, but in this 3 month study, OSX was ahead on one month and behind on 2. You say yourself that windows is unstable and has bad uptime because of updates... yet its ahead of OSX for uptime in this test. How pathetic is OSX if it cannot top Windows every time (which you yourself say is unstable and poor for uptime due to reboots). OSX must be a shiny turd then.
i have found numerous articles for you, complaining of the INstability of windows. can you show me one , where users are complaining how unstable osx is? did you see the fluctuations for linux, for example? you fail to grasp such complicated concepts, i know,
Doesnt matter how many articles you find. There are a lot of articles because there are 20x the number of windows users for every mac. Many using cheap computers with hacked versions that dont even get updated.
The fact that our servers at work are rock solid (wink2k3) and my server at home is rock solid (win2K) and I've had zero issues with windows since NT4 came out means the following:
1. I know what I'm doing
2. The people with problems dont know their ass from their elbow.
so, since apple is 8-14 % of the marketshare, overall, for every 20 articles i find for windows' failure, you should be able to find 1 for osx. right?
'rock solid' compared to what? not running at all?
why did the server go down 2 years ago if windows is 'rock solid'?
OMG just type in google "OSX kernel panic" and stop being a spas. You're a smart guy. Research. About 400,000 results found.
Type in "Windows blue screen". You get about 2.2 million. So even though market share is so SOOO much bigger for windows, there is only 4x the hits on that search.
Like it or not, OSX is more unstable and it doesnt need help from viruses, spyware or 'bad apps'. Windows has to deal with that crap and yet only 4x more hits yet its about 15-20X more popular.
you do realize that the terms 'kernel panic' are also returning results for all operating systems, possibly even windows. you might get a few bogus on 'blue screen' but not near as many. and google results are hardly an accurate way to generate exacting numbers
many times, those can be duplicates realting to just one instance, so its highly inaccurate. obviously, I am not denying that they exist and do happen. i am saying that numbers generated in this way are highly inaccurate to quote.
go ask garethhallnz if what you are trying to prove is accurate. he knows. he deals with it, daily, unlike you. I have discussed this, previously, with him.
While Gareth is a great guy, I honestly dont need to discuss with him anything. We were discussing uptime and I said that we have a server that had been up for 2 years. Thats it. There is no way to dance around that. You can pretend all you want that windows crashes or is unstable..blah blah, but fact of the matter is that the server was handling the corporate email and was up for 2 years without so much a reboot and only reason it went down was a server cabinet relocation.
Nothing thats running more than a few months is really "the norm" when compared to the number of computers on the planet. The fact that our HP server running 2k3 ran for that long means that it can be done and its not really that difficult. I'm not some miracle network admin or is that HP server anything special.
make up your mind. First you ask for specifics such as load in percentage and now you ask a very vague question using the word demand. Demand could be CPU, Memory, Disk. Which is it that you want to know about?
If you do infact know your networking and server management, you will already know the kinds of demands a mail server might go through so I'm not sure why you're asking this to begin with. You are afterall knowledgable with servers right?
demands as in processes run by that machine, load averages, that type of thing-whatever info you have. I have what I would humbly call a rudimentary knowledge of servers
That machine runs Windows 2003, Exchange 2003, Trend antivirus for exchange. Exchange tries to take as much free RAM and make use of it so as to improve performance so its heavy on RAM activity and usage. Exchange is also disk intensive since each user in the company has their mail stored on this server (SCSI array made up of 15x 147GB 10k drives).
Mail servers are not typically very cpu intensive. Ours does spike 100% sometimes for short periods but its due to the Antivirus for exchange.
Ya its normal since its a very busy mail server and its not a new box so CPU power is low compared to current processors, but its fine for handling email flow. Also exchange server handles all calendaring, contacts and meetings for the organization as well has having an internal forum...so its not really just an email server I guess.
It handles the 150 users as well as automated notification reports from 80 remote sites we have for our business which come in at regular intervals.
ya. It was running windows 2000 server and exchange 2000 a while back but we decided to go with 2K3 along with exchange 2K3. This combo bumped the ram usage a little so we went from 2GB to 3GB. Interestingly enough, CPU usage didnt go up much at all.
"When your regular average starts to creep up around 2.0 then your server is very busy and you should consider getting another machine or upgrading your hardware. When I say regular average, I mean when the system is idle during the day and isn't processing all..."
Our server has very little load when idling and doing nothing. Our average load is because it IS doing something. Thats what I said earlier. Load varies from nothing to 100%. Average is low 40's.
You failed to read your own document. Classic. I'll post it again for you. This time try reading and actually comprehending.
"When your regular average starts to creep up around 2.0 then your server is very busy and you should consider getting another machine or upgrading your hardware. When I say regular average, I mean when the system is idle..."
Again you show that you dont understand the first thing about servers, management, idle, load, average or anything.
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you a retard? R-E-T-A-R-D. Ya please go run this command under Win2k3 server. Moron. Holy hell I cant take it anymore. Seriously. I've never met anyone as slow as you. No wonder people make fun of you.
doesnt matter. It works, performance is good (nobody complaining about speed) and stability has been nothing less than stellar. I think I will leave it as is :)
yeah, that was the kind of thinking that a few people had for their horse and buggy, when the automobile was invented. be sure to stay with what's working, at the moment! is your horse brown, white or black?
Well you definitly show your lack of knowledge or experience in server and administration. Doesnt surprise me though. You even acknowledge that you have redementary knowledge of servers. Speaking of buggy...how is your G4? If you ever want to upgrade, I can give you the G4 I have that might head for hardware recycling.
discussion over. Seriously. I cant take it anymore. I'd rather slit my wrist than discuss anything with you. You are slow. Really. I dont want to be mean to you but this is pointless and a total waste of time for me.
are you saying you never touted the 'impressiveness' of your tiny offices uptime? and how much load was that server doing/ and i know you can find that-right?
ht tp://ww w. infoworld. com/weblog/openresource/archives/2005/12/linux_uptime_a. ht ml
What I said is that the server in my office of 150 people had been up for nearly 2 years (we had updates disabled because its not an immediatly outward facing server. We have a mail gateway that faces out and this is behind that one. The mail gateway filters spam and then relays the message to our internal mail servers (we have 2). This particular mail server was the main one. There is a second for redundancy.
The load will be that of a mail server handling 150 users.
Anyway mkfag77 & wellhowdydeux (since you are the same), I'm done with this discussion because it will just go in a circle. All I will say is that I have a screenshot of out server showing that its idle time was nearly 2 years (heck that means its actually up longer than that) and you have really nothing as far as personal experience that will match that.
So because my experience is first hand, I will not argue with someone that cant provide me with his or her own screenshot showing the same.
wow, just because i dont have a personal uptime (which, technically, you dont either, since this is your (works) computer. nice way to boogie away from the discussion, tail between legs!
no, but windows sure is! wow, your company must really be the pits if you work 7 days a week. but it's nice that they use your computer to run their server on.
holy fu*ck you are stupid. I dont work 7 days a week and they dont use my server. Really, not to be mean but I think you're retarded.
My work actually has about 40 different windows based servers and 2 OSX servers. The OSX servers are so shit that we're recycling them and replacing them two HP Proliants. Windows version of Quark QLA is available and Mac clients will save their work on these servers. Cant wait for these heaps to be gone.
I was just taking what you typed, verbatim. you said you touched the servers every day. and you said that personal experience was all that mattered, to you. what os is on them and are they xserves?
No what you did is put 2 and 2 together and made 5. You made insane assumptions thats all.
I said personal experience. I work there. I manage the server. That makes it my personal experience. I dont have to own it. I do own my own server as well but how you assumed that my work uses that is beyond me.
hehe, funny how i recognise your sarcasm and you try to be funny and ignore mine. note that i typed 'try'. I was, again being sarcastic in your 'description' of it as being 'your server'. i fully realize that you maintain and are privvy to every factor it deals with.
Interesting. I click "view all comments" then search for the word "try" and guess what, only the post you just added comes up. Please direct me to the one you claim in typed in "try".
and? Did I make a statement that no other system can stay up for 2 years or more? No. I said that our server was up for 2 years before we had to move it.
You try so hard to turn everything into a contest...Were you not loved when you were growing up or something? :)
I like oranges.
...now I will wait for you to automatically go find something bad about oranges or some kind of chart about orange consumption vs other fruit. - its like some kind of reflex for you. LMAO.
no. i am merely responding to your belief that microsoft windows is the most stable os out there, and of the four i have used, it's the most UNstable and is also the one i have logged the most hours, running.
nope, where have I indicated that? i was saying that our discussion about your server with its two year uptime, that discussion, has occured, throughout this thread
So far the guy in this video has said pretty much nothing incorrect. The person that thinks he was wrong is actually wrong.
BTW stability is not an issue in windows. If it was, our Exchange server which handles about 150 users would be going down all the time and its been up nearly 2 years without a crash or reboot. Have the screenshot of the uptime (or rather the idletime) to prove it.
I dont think windows sucks, I just think it is has many flaws. But yeah... anyway. Wth is with the 'X', its a variable re-re.. oh and who the hell in their right minds, that live in the twenty-first century talk with roman numberals...? the Cashier at the grocery store sure as hell doesnt say "that'll be IIIVVX (or whatever the hell it is)"
does a soda from a cheap ass vending machine cost II dollars? Or $2?
@warhammerfanatic76 lol windows pcs suck, even windows 7 ones!
mkfag77 1 year ago
He does not hate Windows he hates the fact that some PC's come with it from what I can gather. A PC can be faster than a Mac but you need a bloody good PC like Steve Said there is no shitty Mac. Mac OS X is not UNIX it is UNIX like. It's actually BSD which is the nearest thing to the closed source UNIX now. Year sure it's more secure than Mac OS X but 3x more in your face!
thomashome05 3 years ago
PS. I've concluded you and wellhowdydeux are the same person :)
svtcontour 3 years ago
So far the guy in this video has said pretty much nothing incorrect. The person that thinks he was wrong is actually wrong.
BTW stability is not an issue in windows. If it was, our Exchange server which handles about 150 users would be going down all the time and its been up nearly 2 years without a crash or reboot. Have the screenshot of the uptime (or rather the idletime) to prove it. If you can provide me with a link or screenshot of any OSX box being up that long, I'd love to see it.
svtcontour 3 years ago
'That may explain why it is impossible for Linux, Solaris and HP-UX to show up with as impressive numbers of consecutive days of uptime as BSD -- even if these operating systems actually run for years without a reboot. But it does not explain why Windows is nowhere to be found in the top 50 list. Windows does not reset its uptime counter. Obviously, no Windows-based web site has been able to run long enough without rebooting to rank among the top 50 for uptime.'
mkfag77 3 years ago
source:ht tp://ww w. theregister. co. uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/#execsummary
apparently windows is NOT stable.
mkfag77 3 years ago
Apparently. LOL. I'll tell that to our HP DL380 running 2K3 :) ... I'll tell it to crash soon as not to disrupt time/space :)
svtcontour 3 years ago
apparently, your server might be running such a small amount of data (relatively speaking)that ANY os would behave as it does. i'd love ta see that screenshot.
mkfag77 3 years ago
Its actually serving 150 users for email and the mailboxes are stored on a 1.5TB SCSI array. You'd be surprised at how much data goes through a mail server in a busy company. I'll post a video response.
svtcontour 3 years ago
"BTW stability is not an issue in windows"
LMAO.....you have got to be kidding. Thats one of the top 10 most stupid things I have ever heard.
gunslinger3030 3 years ago
Did you read what I said? Our exchange 2K3 box has been up for 2 years without a reboot, freeze or crash. If windows was inheritly unstable, it would never be able to spend 2 years serving email for 150 users without so much a hiccup. The problem is that there are a lot of dumb users who dont know what they are doing, lot of garbage software that people install, lots of viruses that might infect a box if its not properly maintained and lastly crappy hardware out there. Windows by itself is fine
svtcontour 3 years ago
are you going on record as saying windows as stable as any other os?
mkfag77 3 years ago
No let me take this one step further. Infact what I'm saying is that Windows is MORE stable than OSX and many flavours of Linux.
uptime. netcraft. c0m Number 2 and 12 are windows boxes. I dont even see OSX anywhere. There are dozens of BSD boxes below the windows boxes in that list.
svtcontour 3 years ago
uptime, by itself, is not a good measure of stability. on a non-used box, you may get a great uptime, but it really means nothing. usage is an integral part of it.
mkfag77 3 years ago
The uptimes in the list are web servers. They are doing something. The exchange server at my work is also serving mail for 150 users and sometimes with very large attachments. Its also running Trendmicros exchange server antivirus so cpu usage will be higher than just doing mail.
Anyway you can say what you want about windows instability, but I'm looking at first hand experience of them being rock solid. Its proper setup and config that makes any OS stable or unstable.
svtcontour 3 years ago
take a look at this:
ht tp://w ww. antionline. com/archive/index. php/t-271283. ht ml
mkfag77 3 years ago
Thanks for the link, but its a discussion thread by nobody in particular providing no facts...just some opinions on what they would run.
The link I provided showing the uptimes are fact...they are measured times of real machines. I also have a screenshot of our exchange server showing that its been up for ages. I trust those as they are not an opinion :)
svtcontour 3 years ago
ht tp://news. bbc. co. uk/1/hi/technology/4528785. stm
mkfag77 3 years ago
ummm and...
svtcontour 3 years ago
ht tp://blog. mon. itor. us//?p=286
mkfag77 3 years ago
Interesting. With Windows posting higher on average in uptime than OSX in this link and windows being fairly close to Linux and BSD I thought to my self something...then I read exactly what I was thinking.
"One of the reasons for lower uptime for Windows is the reboots needed for Windows after patches, updates and installations."
So the uptime is close even with so many updates and reboots. That means its actuall crashing LESS than BSD or Linux. Its just time lost for software updates!
svtcontour 3 years ago
you do realize that other os's don't need to reboot after patches updates and installations? including osx. why osxisn't higher, i don't know. but I will find out. but thanks for admitting why windows is so low
mkfag77 3 years ago
False. I've done updates in OSX and it says to reboot. If you wish, I'll take a photo of it.
svtcontour 3 years ago
are you saying reboots are needed as much in osx as in windows. I agree, that occasionally, it will require rebooting, but not near as often as windows does
mkfag77 3 years ago
you said other OS's DONT need to reboot after updates. I'm just correcting that statement.
svtcontour 3 years ago
ok, suffice it to say that osx needs far less reboots after updates (same with linux)
agree or disagree?
mkfag77 3 years ago
Well I will say less, but not far less. My vista machine for example doesnt require as many reboots for updates when compared to NT4 or Win2k for example.
svtcontour 3 years ago
wow, you like comparing windows to windows? nice. so, if osx needs fewer reboots, wouldn't it follow to have a better uptime?
mkfag77 3 years ago
The discussion is about stability. Uptime is a good measure of stability. If windows machines are posing decent uptimes even though they have to reboot more for updates, chances are they would stay up just as long as Linux or BSD boxes if automatic updates were disabled.
svtcontour 3 years ago
define 'stay up' because, to me, if you have to reboot for updates, your system has failed to 'stay up'.
mkfag77 3 years ago
Are you even reading? Come on man just read and comprehend. If you cant figure it out, then just go back to school.
"The discussion is about stability. Uptime is a good measure of stability. If windows machines are posing decent uptimes even though they have to reboot more for updates, chances are they would stay up just as long as Linux or BSD boxes if automatic updates were disabled."
svtcontour 3 years ago
yes, I am reading, you ignorant pissant. ok, for the purposes of this discussion, state what your definition of 'stay up', is, then i shall tell you mine.
mkfag77 3 years ago
Stay up = not go down. Wtf is wrong with you?
If you cant figure it out now, then god help you. LOL.
svtcontour 3 years ago
ok-then any time you have to reboot, this is 'going down'-which happens far more in windows! If you can't see that, then God help you. LMAO
mkfag77 3 years ago
We didnt reboot our windows box for over 2 years. Thats how it was able to post that high an idle time. Are you dense?
LOL and the only reason we rebooted it is because we expanded our server room so we moved the server rack. LMAO.
svtcontour 3 years ago
and what are its load numbers? LMFAO
mkfag77 3 years ago
higher than an OSX based xserve acting as a file server. Heck it doesnt even have to run anything. Just has to be there...yet its going down I'd say once every 2 months and needs a reboot. Thats OSX without any additional software... Like I said OSX needs no help to crash. Can do it all by itself.
svtcontour 3 years ago
uh, I deal in specifics like "up for two years'. what are its loads, please? quit avoiding this.
mkfag77 3 years ago
Loads can be anywhere from 3% up to 100% and varies from time of day. Does that help you? Didnt think so....because you have no idea what you're talking about. How come you're not asking me about the memory usage? Are you under the impression that all crashes are cpu load related? If so, then I really know you're clueless.
svtcontour 3 years ago
most servers have average load usages. ok give me that, too
mkfag77 3 years ago
and the statement stands true:other os's do not reboot after certain updates, whereas windows would need to reboot
mkfag77 3 years ago
After certain updates but not all. Reboots have nothing to do with the OS's stability by the way. If I decide NOT to update a windows box and leave it running as is, thats ok as long as I dont specifically need any of the fixes in the updates.
svtcontour 3 years ago
i had never said after ALL updates. and you think that windows is the most stable os, around?
mkfag77 3 years ago
You know. I'll play your game. I've already answered this question but you ignored it so I'll turn it around in such a way that you wont ignore it.
Windows is the most stable OS ever. More stable than OSX by far and more stable than all flavours of linux and BSD.
Hows that? Does that answer work better for you this time around or did you just ignore the last time I answered this question?
svtcontour 3 years ago
no, that's fine. i didn't remember you stating that, before. I know how you are doing your windows side of this but how are you comparing it to all of these other operating systems? personal experience, as that is your favorite form of basis?
mkfag77 3 years ago
why arent you answering my question, here?
mkfag77 3 years ago
because I have a life outside of youtube and I'm not chained to my computer :)
svtcontour 3 years ago
me too. obviously, you have something to hide, here.
mkfag77 3 years ago
ahh i know one reason for it. osx was .9% of all the websites they monitored while windows was 17%
mkfag77 3 years ago
Doesnt matter how many. of that 0.9%, most of the time, it was below the windows uptimes. If OSX is so stable and its rebooted even less for updates, every single instance should be higher in uptime than a windows box but it isnt. Infact most of the time it was below.
svtcontour 3 years ago
but you told me that windows was THE best. what do you say now? does windows have the best uptime? and this is just server stats, not desktop use
mkfag77 3 years ago
Please show me where I said it was the best. Please grow up and dont act like you're 12 years old.
If you go to previous posts, you will see that I said that I think Windows is infact more stable than OSX and many flavours of linux. That statement does not imply it is THE BEST.
svtcontour 3 years ago
my link shows that windows is NOT more stable than linux, and is actually, far LESS stable
mkfag77 3 years ago
How so? HOw is it far less when the numbers are THAT close yet the document itself says that the windows box also includes reboot time for updates. If you remove that from the equation, I'm willing to bet that it will be near the top of that chart.
One things for sure, its overall higher than OSX in the list....
svtcontour 3 years ago
on one month it wasn't. if the study were done longer, results could vary
mkfag77 3 years ago
it could, but in this 3 month study, OSX was ahead on one month and behind on 2. You say yourself that windows is unstable and has bad uptime because of updates... yet its ahead of OSX for uptime in this test. How pathetic is OSX if it cannot top Windows every time (which you yourself say is unstable and poor for uptime due to reboots). OSX must be a shiny turd then.
svtcontour 3 years ago
i have found numerous articles for you, complaining of the INstability of windows. can you show me one , where users are complaining how unstable osx is? did you see the fluctuations for linux, for example? you fail to grasp such complicated concepts, i know,
mkfag77 3 years ago
Doesnt matter how many articles you find. There are a lot of articles because there are 20x the number of windows users for every mac. Many using cheap computers with hacked versions that dont even get updated.
The fact that our servers at work are rock solid (wink2k3) and my server at home is rock solid (win2K) and I've had zero issues with windows since NT4 came out means the following:
1. I know what I'm doing
2. The people with problems dont know their ass from their elbow.
svtcontour 3 years ago
so, since apple is 8-14 % of the marketshare, overall, for every 20 articles i find for windows' failure, you should be able to find 1 for osx. right?
'rock solid' compared to what? not running at all?
why did the server go down 2 years ago if windows is 'rock solid'?
mkfag77 3 years ago
OMG just type in google "OSX kernel panic" and stop being a spas. You're a smart guy. Research. About 400,000 results found.
Type in "Windows blue screen". You get about 2.2 million. So even though market share is so SOOO much bigger for windows, there is only 4x the hits on that search.
Like it or not, OSX is more unstable and it doesnt need help from viruses, spyware or 'bad apps'. Windows has to deal with that crap and yet only 4x more hits yet its about 15-20X more popular.
svtcontour 3 years ago
you do realize that the terms 'kernel panic' are also returning results for all operating systems, possibly even windows. you might get a few bogus on 'blue screen' but not near as many. and google results are hardly an accurate way to generate exacting numbers
mkfag77 3 years ago
Whatever...make whatever excuses you want. YOu can just type it in and go through page 1, 10, 20..etc. Its all still discussing OSX.
svtcontour 3 years ago
many times, those can be duplicates realting to just one instance, so its highly inaccurate. obviously, I am not denying that they exist and do happen. i am saying that numbers generated in this way are highly inaccurate to quote.
mkfag77 3 years ago
type in "windows kernel panic". I got almost 500k in results...
mkfag77 3 years ago
ok I typed in "OSX bluescreen" and got 473,000 results. Stop playing games. You're losing.
svtcontour 3 years ago
thank you for proving my point further on how inaccurate the numbers can be.
mkfag77 3 years ago
Whatever makes you feel good.
svtcontour 3 years ago
remember: the key to being svtcontour is deny, deny, deny!
mkfag77 3 years ago
Deny? LOL. You're not the one that has any server management experience. You're just a keyboard warrior while I actually deal with the issues. Hehe.
svtcontour 3 years ago
how do YOU know that I have no server management experience?
mkfag77 3 years ago
Just a very good hunch.
svtcontour 3 years ago
sorry, you'd be wrong
mkfag77 3 years ago
and what does that have to do with the inaccuracies of what you are trying to show?
mkfag77 3 years ago
The only inaccuracies are the ones you're typing.
svtcontour 3 years ago
go ask garethhallnz if what you are trying to prove is accurate. he knows. he deals with it, daily, unlike you. I have discussed this, previously, with him.
mkfag77 3 years ago
While Gareth is a great guy, I honestly dont need to discuss with him anything. We were discussing uptime and I said that we have a server that had been up for 2 years. Thats it. There is no way to dance around that. You can pretend all you want that windows crashes or is unstable..blah blah, but fact of the matter is that the server was handling the corporate email and was up for 2 years without so much a reboot and only reason it went down was a server cabinet relocation.
svtcontour 3 years ago
wow, I am happy for you. I am merely trying to prove that it's the exception, not the rule.
mkfag77 3 years ago
Nothing thats running more than a few months is really "the norm" when compared to the number of computers on the planet. The fact that our HP server running 2k3 ran for that long means that it can be done and its not really that difficult. I'm not some miracle network admin or is that HP server anything special.
svtcontour 3 years ago
is it also possible that the demands(or lack, thereof) made on a computer, could also affect its performance?
mkfag77 3 years ago
make up your mind. First you ask for specifics such as load in percentage and now you ask a very vague question using the word demand. Demand could be CPU, Memory, Disk. Which is it that you want to know about?
If you do infact know your networking and server management, you will already know the kinds of demands a mail server might go through so I'm not sure why you're asking this to begin with. You are afterall knowledgable with servers right?
svtcontour 3 years ago
demands as in processes run by that machine, load averages, that type of thing-whatever info you have. I have what I would humbly call a rudimentary knowledge of servers
mkfag77 3 years ago
That machine runs Windows 2003, Exchange 2003, Trend antivirus for exchange. Exchange tries to take as much free RAM and make use of it so as to improve performance so its heavy on RAM activity and usage. Exchange is also disk intensive since each user in the company has their mail stored on this server (SCSI array made up of 15x 147GB 10k drives).
Mail servers are not typically very cpu intensive. Ours does spike 100% sometimes for short periods but its due to the Antivirus for exchange.
svtcontour 3 years ago
do you know what its average load use is?
mkfag77 3 years ago
Its 43% average load.
svtcontour 3 years ago
damn, that's kinda high. is that normal?
mkfag77 3 years ago
Ya its normal since its a very busy mail server and its not a new box so CPU power is low compared to current processors, but its fine for handling email flow. Also exchange server handles all calendaring, contacts and meetings for the organization as well has having an internal forum...so its not really just an email server I guess.
It handles the 150 users as well as automated notification reports from 80 remote sites we have for our business which come in at regular intervals.
svtcontour 3 years ago
and its on windows server 2003?
mkfag77 3 years ago
ya. It was running windows 2000 server and exchange 2000 a while back but we decided to go with 2K3 along with exchange 2K3. This combo bumped the ram usage a little so we went from 2GB to 3GB. Interestingly enough, CPU usage didnt go up much at all.
svtcontour 3 years ago
this is what I am asking about:
ht tp://ww w. crucialp. com/resources/tutorials/server-administration/server-loads-explained-linux-unix. php
mkfag77 3 years ago
From the document:
"When your regular average starts to creep up around 2.0 then your server is very busy and you should consider getting another machine or upgrading your hardware. When I say regular average, I mean when the system is idle during the day and isn't processing all..."
Our server has very little load when idling and doing nothing. Our average load is because it IS doing something. Thats what I said earlier. Load varies from nothing to 100%. Average is low 40's.
svtcontour 3 years ago
apparently, you arent getting the right stat, they are saying when it gets to 2, start worrying. you are at 40????? call in the airstrike!
mkfag77 3 years ago
You failed to read your own document. Classic. I'll post it again for you. This time try reading and actually comprehending.
"When your regular average starts to creep up around 2.0 then your server is very busy and you should consider getting another machine or upgrading your hardware. When I say regular average, I mean when the system is idle..."
Again you show that you dont understand the first thing about servers, management, idle, load, average or anything.
OSX is good for you...
svtcontour 3 years ago
from the article, please try to read and comprehend, this time
:
Method 1 - using the uptime command:
The uptime shell command produces the following output:
[pax:~]% uptime
9:40am up 9 days, 10:36, 4 users, load average: 0.02, 0.01, 0.00
again you show that you don't know anything, period!
windows is good for you, please stay there!!!
mkfag77 3 years ago
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you a retard? R-E-T-A-R-D. Ya please go run this command under Win2k3 server. Moron. Holy hell I cant take it anymore. Seriously. I've never met anyone as slow as you. No wonder people make fun of you.
svtcontour 3 years ago
true, I never ran a windows server. loads are different in it? because i WILL check into it
mkfag77 3 years ago
from everything I have seen about servers, that's kinda high usage
mkfag77 3 years ago
doesnt matter. It works, performance is good (nobody complaining about speed) and stability has been nothing less than stellar. I think I will leave it as is :)
svtcontour 3 years ago
yeah, that was the kind of thinking that a few people had for their horse and buggy, when the automobile was invented. be sure to stay with what's working, at the moment! is your horse brown, white or black?
mkfag77 3 years ago
Well you definitly show your lack of knowledge or experience in server and administration. Doesnt surprise me though. You even acknowledge that you have redementary knowledge of servers. Speaking of buggy...how is your G4? If you ever want to upgrade, I can give you the G4 I have that might head for hardware recycling.
svtcontour 3 years ago
in what way?
mkfag77 3 years ago
discussion over. Seriously. I cant take it anymore. I'd rather slit my wrist than discuss anything with you. You are slow. Really. I dont want to be mean to you but this is pointless and a total waste of time for me.
svtcontour 3 years ago
ahh leaving because i showed you to be full of shit? well done sir! go have a blue screen day!
mkfag77 3 years ago
i think the video where we discussed is gone, now
are you saying you never touted the 'impressiveness' of your tiny offices uptime? and how much load was that server doing/ and i know you can find that-right?
ht tp://ww w. infoworld. com/weblog/openresource/archives/2005/12/linux_uptime_a. ht ml
mkfag77 3 years ago
What I said is that the server in my office of 150 people had been up for nearly 2 years (we had updates disabled because its not an immediatly outward facing server. We have a mail gateway that faces out and this is behind that one. The mail gateway filters spam and then relays the message to our internal mail servers (we have 2). This particular mail server was the main one. There is a second for redundancy.
The load will be that of a mail server handling 150 users.
svtcontour 3 years ago
so, not all that much thanks for clarifying that
mkfag77 3 years ago
Anyway mkfag77 & wellhowdydeux (since you are the same), I'm done with this discussion because it will just go in a circle. All I will say is that I have a screenshot of out server showing that its idle time was nearly 2 years (heck that means its actually up longer than that) and you have really nothing as far as personal experience that will match that.
So because my experience is first hand, I will not argue with someone that cant provide me with his or her own screenshot showing the same.
svtcontour 3 years ago
wow, just because i dont have a personal uptime (which, technically, you dont either, since this is your (works) computer. nice way to boogie away from the discussion, tail between legs!
mkfag77 3 years ago
It is my personal uptime. Thats a server that I manage and touch every day. Thanks.
svtcontour 3 years ago
damn, I thought your company owned the server
mkfag77 3 years ago
Are you slow?
svtcontour 3 years ago
no, but windows sure is! wow, your company must really be the pits if you work 7 days a week. but it's nice that they use your computer to run their server on.
mkfag77 3 years ago
holy fu*ck you are stupid. I dont work 7 days a week and they dont use my server. Really, not to be mean but I think you're retarded.
My work actually has about 40 different windows based servers and 2 OSX servers. The OSX servers are so shit that we're recycling them and replacing them two HP Proliants. Windows version of Quark QLA is available and Mac clients will save their work on these servers. Cant wait for these heaps to be gone.
svtcontour 3 years ago
I was just taking what you typed, verbatim. you said you touched the servers every day. and you said that personal experience was all that mattered, to you. what os is on them and are they xserves?
mkfag77 3 years ago
No what you did is put 2 and 2 together and made 5. You made insane assumptions thats all.
I said personal experience. I work there. I manage the server. That makes it my personal experience. I dont have to own it. I do own my own server as well but how you assumed that my work uses that is beyond me.
svtcontour 3 years ago
hehe, funny how i recognise your sarcasm and you try to be funny and ignore mine. note that i typed 'try'. I was, again being sarcastic in your 'description' of it as being 'your server'. i fully realize that you maintain and are privvy to every factor it deals with.
mkfag77 3 years ago
Interesting. I click "view all comments" then search for the word "try" and guess what, only the post you just added comes up. Please direct me to the one you claim in typed in "try".
svtcontour 3 years ago
for example, the one right above it
mkfag77 3 years ago
ht tp://w ww. hitup. org/
mkfag77 3 years ago
and? Did I make a statement that no other system can stay up for 2 years or more? No. I said that our server was up for 2 years before we had to move it.
You try so hard to turn everything into a contest...Were you not loved when you were growing up or something? :)
I like oranges.
...now I will wait for you to automatically go find something bad about oranges or some kind of chart about orange consumption vs other fruit. - its like some kind of reflex for you. LMAO.
svtcontour 3 years ago
no. i am merely responding to your belief that microsoft windows is the most stable os out there, and of the four i have used, it's the most UNstable and is also the one i have logged the most hours, running.
mkfag77 3 years ago
you asked to see osx up that long. I'll refresh your memory:
mkfag77 3 years ago
Yes...but that was a long time ago. You really should avoid jumping from topic to topic. Makes more sense to stay on track and discuss whats at hand.
svtcontour 3 years ago
are you saying that you server having a two year uptime has not occured throughout this thread?
mkfag77 3 years ago
are you saying that I said my server has not run for 2 years?
svtcontour 3 years ago
nope, where have I indicated that? i was saying that our discussion about your server with its two year uptime, that discussion, has occured, throughout this thread
mkfag77 3 years ago
Oh I see. I missunderstood your question. Yes we did talk about that in this thread. Why would you ask me that though? We both know this...
svtcontour 3 years ago
you try to claim that I am jumping from topic to topic. this all revolves around your two year uptime on a windows server
mkfag77 3 years ago
Ok ya you're right. You didnt jump around.
svtcontour 3 years ago
what else have i been discussing here?
mkfag77 3 years ago
svtcontour (2 months ago)
So far the guy in this video has said pretty much nothing incorrect. The person that thinks he was wrong is actually wrong.
BTW stability is not an issue in windows. If it was, our Exchange server which handles about 150 users would be going down all the time and its been up nearly 2 years without a crash or reboot. Have the screenshot of the uptime (or rather the idletime) to prove it.
-CONT
mkfag77 3 years ago
If you can provide me with a link or screenshot of any OSX box being up that long, I'd love to see it.
mkfag77 3 years ago
and so you did... thats great.
svtcontour 3 years ago
I dont think windows sucks, I just think it is has many flaws. But yeah... anyway. Wth is with the 'X', its a variable re-re.. oh and who the hell in their right minds, that live in the twenty-first century talk with roman numberals...? the Cashier at the grocery store sure as hell doesnt say "that'll be IIIVVX (or whatever the hell it is)"
does a soda from a cheap ass vending machine cost II dollars? Or $2?
I think I have gotten my point across...
LoL at Atheist18505!
KILLERxNOOB 3 years ago
how is super bowl forty-one written?
mkfag77 3 years ago
Mac User do not even know what OS they are running, MAC OS X(Version release 10.5.3).
Atheist18505 3 years ago
yes. and the 'x' is pronounced correctly as "ten" video upcoming
mkfag77 3 years ago
mac sucks man we all know it, they shouldn't have been invented they suck.
xxxxxxxDreamxxxxxxx 3 years ago
why do they suck, specifiacally. you sound like an 8 year old
mkfag77 3 years ago
mac sucks
xxxxxxxDreamxxxxxxx 3 years ago
please tell me exactly why you believe that.
mkfag77 3 years ago
lol wiki MAC OS X(X is the roman numeral for 10.) Who is the retard?
Atheist18505 3 years ago
you are, video upcoming which proves it!
mkfag77 3 years ago
why'd you block my truisms?
mkfag77 3 years ago