Quote:
Originally Posted by Korvacs
2008 for the ability to install it in various different configurations depending on what you need, and its performance improvements over 2003.
Also, not sure where this illusion has come from that Windows desktop os's arnt stable, if your not a complete retard you can use any windows os and have no issues with it.
|
Most people say that Windows Server, NT, XP, etc are
more stable than their other operating systems, not that the others
aren't stable. But when it comes down to it, they really aren't that stable. I've worked with damn near every single release of Windows that Microsoft has put out, and a lot of them were complete crap in regards to stability for programmers/developers. 95/98/ME/2k/Vista were complete bullshit when it comes to stability. The kernels themselves had a literal shitload of problems that Microsoft
assumed no one would run into, because they expected only those
morons you mention to be the ones using said operating systems. The NT series was the first release they put out that was more stable for developers since Microsoft's rendition of DOS and 3x. After that came Windows XP, which they actually thought about developers while making. Windows 7 is another step towards stability, offering an improved version of Microsoft's
hybrid-kernel, which eliminated a lot of the problems that the 9x kernel had in the core, that they kept building upon, but it still has its problems.
Anyway, there's no point arguing this too much, as most people haven't even used most of Microsoft's releases to the point of finding the bugs in the kernel, so I guess to them, it's quite "stable".