PDA

View Full Version : Win 98 & ME reliability MTBF



threaded
1st October 2003, 20:44
Anyone know where to find decent figures of MTBF for the different versions of the Windows 98 OS.

Particularly interested in reboot failures.

DimPrawn
2nd October 2003, 19:06
Christ, all Win9x/ME products are pathetic.

Microsoft literally did Delete *.* with that source code.

The MTBF can be measured in hours I'm sure.

Only Win2K and beyond represent what I would call useable software.

AtW
2nd October 2003, 23:44
95 is the most stable of them, ME is the worst. depending on what you do (and how crappy software leaking memory made for it) uptime can range from minutes to some days. In any case its purely academical figure worth considering for musium reaosn sonly.

jacko
3rd October 2003, 08:09
Win98 was somewhere between 2 and 24 hours. ME has been better - 48 to 76 hours....

xoggoth
3rd October 2003, 09:35
As Atw says surely depends what you are running on it. But I can say from recent experience that 98 is awful. So many things leak memory that work fine in 2000. Having developed stuff on 2000 I then had to go through rewriting sections so it would run reasonably reliably on 98. Simple stuff like VB PaintPicture with the image parameter or displaying wmf/emf files.

Next time I will do a search for 98 memory leaks on the MSN site before I write a single line.

threaded
5th October 2003, 19:09
Basically guys someone showed me some figures for a variety of win 98 systems giving reliability. One of the figures that caught my interest was the rate of failure on reboot, it was way way too low, like once in five years, I've not seen a windows box that didn't need a rebuild at least once a year after failing to boot, but my problem is that I can't find anyone elses figures, so can't show that the statistics the client has are somehow wrong.

AtW
6th October 2003, 20:52
since that guy did not include extra software one must assume he run vanilla win98 install, probably minimum install too, in which case (which is purely artificial) stats could be queit high.

the real question is, would you give a [you know what] that someone's work station works fine when yours is dieing on you? One bad video driver and you is gonna suffer badly.

fiddleabout
8th October 2003, 08:33
ATX- It's not an acedemic question - I'd disagree that you absolutely must go ever forward. If you have a simple need then win95 requires far less resources than later operating systems. If a box fits a requirement using a given set of software this year it will still do exactly the same 5 or 10 years later - what changes are your requirements.

I've currently got 3 machines. Desktop for business related stuff and any serious development work. Laptop mostly used for surfing. They both run XP but neither is cutting edge. The other one is mentioned in Mini-ITX thread (16Mb P75 Win95/98) and will be replaced for the reasons mentioned there - it could still be used for the reason I bought it - highly portable pc with my docs and old source code etc. when I was working at a site that only provided a dumb terminal.

Most rebuilds are needed to get rid of all the crud accumulated from installing/removing crap software from magazine disks and downloads. I've never once had a windows machine fail to boot - bluescreens yes - complete boot failures no.