Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

TeeJay (2309)

TeeJay
  (email not shown publicly)
http://www.aarontrevena.co.uk/

Working in Truro
Graduate with BSc (Hons) in Computer Systems and Networks
pm : london.pm, bath.pm, devoncornwall.pm
lug : Devon & Cornwall LUG
CPAN : TEEJAY [cpan.org]
irc : TeeJay
skype : hashbangperl
livejournal : hashbangperl [livejournal.com]
flickr :hashbangperl [flickr.com]

Journal of TeeJay (2309)

Wednesday October 02, 2002
03:10 AM

windows 2000 considered harmful

[ #8125 ]
Now my workstation in the office has been playing up for a couple of months now - slowly deteriating along the Verity Stobbs cruft scale.

Windows 2000, despite what people claim, just isn't stable - maybe if you just run IIS and nothing else it might be able to run for a month or two before requiring a reboot.

But when you are doing development - it is totally unreliable. The combination of (what microsoft reccomends) SQL Server, InterDev, Outlook and Internet Explorer ensures that your machine is unusably slow unless powercycled at least 3 times a week and whenever internet explorer crashes (now several times a day) it can take the whole desktop with it.

This being windows with IE embedded into the kernel along with big chunks of office and sql server means that often when one application crashes it is impossible to recover the desktop at all and you must reboot the machine.

This isn't stability and you can't even blame dodgy shareware - I'm running all MS software and protected from viruses, at the mailserver and locally - my virus definition files are regularly updated and all the service packs applied.

The only way to have a workable windows 2000 desktop is to either run only notepad or to reboot daily and reinstall weekly.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I run 2000 at home, but I'm not doing any .NET or local development. I mostly run a freeware editor and SSH clients to transfer my programs to development/production servers. Extremely reliable.

    I did buy the Visual Studio .NET beta a few months ago and that did major mojo to my system, so I uninstalled it and haven't looked back.

    So I agree that if you are doing cutting-edge stuff on Win2k, then God bless you and your sanity. But let's not ignore the fact that Win2k is an awesome platform for us simpl

    • as I said its not suitable as a development platform. Not unless you have a pristine and never use it for more than a few weeks after which it fills with detrius and collapses under its own weight.

      You don't have to be doing cutting edge stuff - all the work stuff here is IIS 5 / ASP / interdev nothing newer than 18 months - should be pretty stable by now but it isn't.

      we're not doing custom c++ objects or java, just plain old vbscript and its unreliable and slow.

      I spend as much time as possible on the

      --

      @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
      print reverse @JAPH;