233MHz iMac Rev. B w/160 MB (now 384 MB) of RAM, never crashed once, no kernel panics, no nothing.
OS 9-Crashes 9 times a day.
Been running OS X since October.
I do, however, turn my comp off at night. Wake up in the morning, hit the switch, go to the bathroom around the corner real quick, come back and its already booted (takes like 1 min 15 secs to bring up login screen).
I love OS X...and to that guy that gets 3 kernel panics a week....either you are doing something horridly wrong or your tower or its ram needs to be converted to pop bottles, scrap metal, and a few other pounds of industrial waste .
It used to kernal panic sometimes when I turned off my firewire CD burner, but since 10.1.3 it doesn't.
Extremely stable....I've never used an OS that is so stable when doing so many different things with it at once. Windows NT is probably about as stable, but of course it's not even half as usable. OS X rawks!!!
Whenever I read a thread like this I realize that people have very different experiences with OS X stability. What I want to know is, why? When we were using the classic OS people pretty much seemed to blame crashes on extensions conflicts or on the antiquated memory management system, but neither of these should be a problem with X. Apple talks about how they make "the whole widget" -- they manufacture the hardware and the software, so they can make them work together well. One would hope that their software would not have compatibility problems on their own hardware (admittedly this is more marketing than reality, but still). So can these crashes be blamed on faulty hardware (memory not up to spec, etc) or faults in the OS itself? (most likely both, I suppose)
In my case I have seen at least half a dozen kernal panics in the last few months, but they are pretty rare. I do have problems that require me to restart my machine relatively often (every few days it seems). In some cases it may not be a full-blown crash, but the finder may stop responding and won't restart when I attempt to relaunch it, or maybe something will be acting strangely and it won't go back to normal without a restart. I've also had several hard crashes while playing the carbon version of Star Craft. I don't know if I can blame that on the OS, but given the hype it should be able to deal with a misbehaving app.
"I have 9 machines all running OSX and it never crashes on any of them! NEVER! The beta's never crashed, nothing ever crashes!
I haven't re-started my machine in almost a year!"
Well, you can only check your email and surf the web on one at a time.. so I could see it!
Anyone here running an actual business with more than say - 4 or 5 macs? all running OSX 10 hours a day? with real world - $$$$$$ deadlines?
I doubt it.
I work in graphic and pre press production and all I can say is - still waiting (I know I am not in the majority of Mac userbase however).
I would LOVE to use X exclusively, but can't. If it's not the networking, it's the sleep bug, if it' not that it's something else... I really really love the OS, but if bugs like the one mentioned can't be squashed - I can't move forward. Every other update something comes and goes.. somewhere.
Everyone says 9 is soooo crash happy, that's crap - it's your bloated system that was probably the issue..
My G4/500/gig o ram that I use for work has Photoshop, Quark, Illustrator (sometimes 8 and 9), email client, IE, iTunes, pictureviewer, Fetch, Acrobat (not reader) and sometimes a few more running all day - ALL DAY. I crash maybe once or twice a week.
Not tripping to bash X, like I said - I love it. Kate pretty much hit the nail on the head though - marketing marketing marketing.
I'm using a TiBook on an AirPort network and I have the same problem. I'm just at the edge of the range of the network and if the signal gets too weak the machine just freezes. The cursor moves but nothing responds.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Same here... TiBook on an AirPort. Cursor moves but nothing else responds. This happens when I wake up from sleep and login.
Perhaps bad RAM explains some of these people who seem to get many kernel panics.
There is an iMac at my lab that is very unstable compared to all other iMacs running OS 9, and I suspect it is bad RAM. Maybe Apple's been going cheap on RAM and as a result some of their computers are extremely unstable?
not much by other peoples' account, but it shows how stable it is. I still have a problem realising that I should NOT turn off the computer, but put it to sleep. Awaking from sleep so fast is probably mostly useful for portables, really really nice. but i had a number of hangs and one kernel panics.
hangs were caused by trying to access a win98 computer with dave, my friend's win98 was not configured and then dave just got crazy and everything stopped, except i could still use the mouse! but i couldn't call up a programme or open a menu (such as the apple-menu)
the kernel panic (with 10.1) happened after waking up from sleep and having unplugged my network-cable, but only once.
i have one question though: what do the load averages mean, and is it good/bad or what?
All your post proves is that you haven't restarted your machine in a week - woohoo! nothing about stability.
What do you do on your machine?
Isn't OSX supposed to access PC networks without Dave? The fact that you have to use that, and that it crashes when you do, argues against your own point. (well.. it's a simple argument against the stability anyway)
A Panic when unplugging a network cable? bad bad.
Looks as though just as many people have problems with X biting it as did OS9.
All your post proves is that you haven't restarted your machine in a week - woohoo! nothing about stability.
What do you do on your machine?
Isn't OSX supposed to access PC networks without Dave? The fact that you have to use that, and that it crashes when you do, argues against your own point. (well.. it's a simple argument against the stability anyway)
A Panic when unplugging a network cable? bad bad.
Looks as though just as many people have problems with X biting it as did OS9.</strong><hr></blockquote>
lol, great blanket logic.
methinks many of you don't have another computer to ssh from? am i right? i have had many finder hangs/crashes/app crashes... but nothing i couldn't ssh into and kill... at most i pull a sudo shutdown now and then an exit from the ill comp to bring it back to life. my uptime is preserved so technically the comp is still up programs crash all the time, but i havent had to hard reboot for a looooooooooooong time, not since 10.1
the things with dave only happened ONCE, and yes, you need dave or something similar if you want to share a folder (and access non-server folders?) win windooze.
what do i do on my machine 10 hours a day (the rest of the time it is sleeping) - normal stuff, that with os 9 had meant a crash every second day.
the panic occurred when i had put the computer to sleep, unplugged the cable and then woke the computer up. don't know why, but only once.
so, nothing about stability? well, perhaps not in absolute terms. but in relation to os 9, and in relationer to win98, win2000 an uptime of, as of now, 9 days and 23 hours is pretty good. if that is not stability - is it then instability or something else. Whatever, it made life easier and I am happy, and if anyone asks me: is Mac OS X stable and what is my experience with that - what should I say - my experience is that it is stable, but that does not prove anything, or should I say that under normal use I don't need to restart but that is not stable?
I am happy with its stability, so shouldn't I be able to claim that it IS stable - and be happy with that?
Not blanket logic.. just looking at the daily activities of the ordinary user (casual-daily user, not professional - which has barely begun making the transition.) and drawing from what people are posting here and on other boards. Of course there are some growing pains and this is new territory for a lot of people.
I haven't ever had a problem tracking down crashes on any of my machines when using 9.. the "last thing installed" troubleshooting step almost ALWAYS worked. OSX has it's problems (that ARE being taken care of) that leave users lost. Now, I am not a programmer - I know many of the 'problems' are app specific.. but I stand by my statement. If I was wrong, the GeniusBar and other OSX troubleshooting forums wouldn't exist. In fact I wonder if I could say 'more' people are having problems (compared to 9) as the user base for the Mac and OSX increases (well it will when the iMacs arrive!
If I am wrong, prove it.. I am not standing on any soapbox, my post earlier in this thread states where I fit in the story. (not a 'casual' user)
Yes, OSX is waaaay more stable - and all the other things.. but 'Crash Proof' as the subject suggests - is still to come. As every day passes things are being tweaked.. for the better usually, I am looking forward to the day that it's all good. I do love OSX and putting my Ti to sleep and letting it run for weeks at a time.
If I hear people say they haven't rebooted / restarted in months.. it tells me they must not have installed anything! (not everything needs it, I know) but even Software Update requires restarts (not from a crash) for some installations??
As for having another machine to ssh with, yes I do have half a dozen Macs and as many PC's in the office to do that.. while I consider that a definite bonus feature with X, it's nothing more than an extra step.. that I shouldn't have to cross. That and I will go out on a limb and say that MOST people don't have another machine to ssh with (nor would they want to/have to).
Thanks for clarifying - I was hoping those things weren't bringing your system down everyday!
I agree.. if for you it IS more stable - you're right, it is. I just posted earlier.. I love that I haven't restarted my Ti in over a week, but if that sleep bug pops up on me once more.. well.. oh well
I haven't crashed OS X for weeks... months, if you don't count software updates. OS X apps are another story, I use one shitty app or another that crashes every other day, probably. In OS 9 I'd be lucky to get through a single week without crashing, whether because of the system or my applications.
Comments
"Hangs" (5)
Finder quit, but comes back in seconds (10)
One ol' fashioned kernal panic. (1)
Perhaps I should stop playing around in the terminal so much?
Is OS X crash proof on your system? <hr></blockquote> No
[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: kelib ]</p>
OS 9-Crashes 9 times a day.
Been running OS X since October.
I do, however, turn my comp off at night. Wake up in the morning, hit the switch, go to the bathroom around the corner real quick, come back and its already booted (takes like 1 min 15 secs to bring up login screen).
I love OS X...and to that guy that gets 3 kernel panics a week....either you are doing something horridly wrong or your tower or its ram needs to be converted to pop bottles, scrap metal, and a few other pounds of industrial waste
It used to kernal panic sometimes when I turned off my firewire CD burner, but since 10.1.3 it doesn't.
Extremely stable....I've never used an OS that is so stable when doing so many different things with it at once. Windows NT is probably about as stable, but of course it's not even half as usable. OS X rawks!!!
In my case I have seen at least half a dozen kernal panics in the last few months, but they are pretty rare. I do have problems that require me to restart my machine relatively often (every few days it seems). In some cases it may not be a full-blown crash, but the finder may stop responding and won't restart when I attempt to relaunch it, or maybe something will be acting strangely and it won't go back to normal without a restart. I've also had several hard crashes while playing the carbon version of Star Craft. I don't know if I can blame that on the OS, but given the hype it should be able to deal with a misbehaving app.
"I have 9 machines all running OSX and it never crashes on any of them! NEVER! The beta's never crashed, nothing ever crashes!
I haven't re-started my machine in almost a year!"
Well, you can only check your email and surf the web on one at a time.. so I could see it!
Anyone here running an actual business with more than say - 4 or 5 macs? all running OSX 10 hours a day? with real world - $$$$$$ deadlines?
I doubt it.
I work in graphic and pre press production and all I can say is - still waiting (I know I am not in the majority of Mac userbase however).
I would LOVE to use X exclusively, but can't. If it's not the networking, it's the sleep bug, if it' not that it's something else... I really really love the OS, but if bugs like the one mentioned can't be squashed - I can't move forward. Every other update something comes and goes.. somewhere.
Everyone says 9 is soooo crash happy, that's crap - it's your bloated system that was probably the issue..
My G4/500/gig o ram that I use for work has Photoshop, Quark, Illustrator (sometimes 8 and 9), email client, IE, iTunes, pictureviewer, Fetch, Acrobat (not reader) and sometimes a few more running all day - ALL DAY. I crash maybe once or twice a week.
Not tripping to bash X, like I said - I love it. Kate pretty much hit the nail on the head though - marketing marketing marketing.
And I BUY, BUY, BUY!
(sucka)
<strong>
I'm using a TiBook on an AirPort network and I have the same problem. I'm just at the edge of the range of the network and if the signal gets too weak the machine just freezes. The cursor moves but nothing responds.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Same here... TiBook on an AirPort. Cursor moves but nothing else responds. This happens when I wake up from sleep and login.
There is an iMac at my lab that is very unstable compared to all other iMacs running OS 9, and I suspect it is bad RAM. Maybe Apple's been going cheap on RAM and as a result some of their computers are extremely unstable?
4:27PM up 8 days, 4:39, 2 users, load averages: 1.39, 0.91, 0.79
not much by other peoples' account, but it shows how stable it is. I still have a problem realising that I should NOT turn off the computer, but put it to sleep. Awaking from sleep so fast is probably mostly useful for portables, really really nice. but i had a number of hangs and one kernel panics.
hangs were caused by trying to access a win98 computer with dave, my friend's win98 was not configured and then dave just got crazy and everything stopped, except i could still use the mouse! but i couldn't call up a programme or open a menu (such as the apple-menu)
the kernel panic (with 10.1) happened after waking up from sleep and having unplugged my network-cable, but only once.
i have one question though: what do the load averages mean, and is it good/bad or what?
it gets freaky on my computer when ever i try to quit the game... often--it crashes it
All your post proves is that you haven't restarted your machine in a week - woohoo! nothing about stability.
What do you do on your machine?
Isn't OSX supposed to access PC networks without Dave? The fact that you have to use that, and that it crashes when you do, argues against your own point. (well.. it's a simple argument against the stability anyway)
A Panic when unplugging a network cable? bad bad.
Looks as though just as many people have problems with X biting it as did OS9.
<strong>dividend,
All your post proves is that you haven't restarted your machine in a week - woohoo! nothing about stability.
What do you do on your machine?
Isn't OSX supposed to access PC networks without Dave? The fact that you have to use that, and that it crashes when you do, argues against your own point. (well.. it's a simple argument against the stability anyway)
A Panic when unplugging a network cable? bad bad.
Looks as though just as many people have problems with X biting it as did OS9.</strong><hr></blockquote>
lol, great blanket logic.
methinks many of you don't have another computer to ssh from? am i right? i have had many finder hangs/crashes/app crashes... but nothing i couldn't ssh into and kill... at most i pull a sudo shutdown now and then an exit from the ill comp to bring it back to life. my uptime is preserved so technically the comp is still up
the things with dave only happened ONCE, and yes, you need dave or something similar if you want to share a folder (and access non-server folders?) win windooze.
what do i do on my machine 10 hours a day (the rest of the time it is sleeping) - normal stuff, that with os 9 had meant a crash every second day.
the panic occurred when i had put the computer to sleep, unplugged the cable and then woke the computer up. don't know why, but only once.
so, nothing about stability? well, perhaps not in absolute terms. but in relation to os 9, and in relationer to win98, win2000 an uptime of, as of now, 9 days and 23 hours is pretty good. if that is not stability - is it then instability or something else. Whatever, it made life easier and I am happy, and if anyone asks me: is Mac OS X stable and what is my experience with that - what should I say - my experience is that it is stable, but that does not prove anything, or should I say that under normal use I don't need to restart but that is not stable?
I am happy with its stability, so shouldn't I be able to claim that it IS stable - and be happy with that?
Not blanket logic.. just looking at the daily activities of the ordinary user (casual-daily user, not professional - which has barely begun making the transition.) and drawing from what people are posting here and on other boards. Of course there are some growing pains and this is new territory for a lot of people.
I haven't ever had a problem tracking down crashes on any of my machines when using 9.. the "last thing installed" troubleshooting step almost ALWAYS worked. OSX has it's problems (that ARE being taken care of) that leave users lost. Now, I am not a programmer - I know many of the 'problems' are app specific.. but I stand by my statement. If I was wrong, the GeniusBar and other OSX troubleshooting forums wouldn't exist. In fact I wonder if I could say 'more' people are having problems (compared to 9) as the user base for the Mac and OSX increases (well it will when the iMacs arrive!
If I am wrong, prove it.. I am not standing on any soapbox, my post earlier in this thread states where I fit in the story. (not a 'casual' user)
Yes, OSX is waaaay more stable - and all the other things.. but 'Crash Proof' as the subject suggests - is still to come. As every day passes things are being tweaked.. for the better usually, I am looking forward to the day that it's all good. I do love OSX and putting my Ti to sleep and letting it run for weeks at a time.
If I hear people say they haven't rebooted / restarted in months.. it tells me they must not have installed anything! (not everything needs it, I know) but even Software Update requires restarts (not from a crash) for some installations??
As for having another machine to ssh with, yes I do have half a dozen Macs and as many PC's in the office to do that.. while I consider that a definite bonus feature with X, it's nothing more than an extra step.. that I shouldn't have to cross. That and I will go out on a limb and say that MOST people don't have another machine to ssh with (nor would they want to/have to).
Wucha think about that?
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: Burn ]
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: Burn ]</p>
Thanks for clarifying - I was hoping those things weren't bringing your system down everyday!
I agree.. if for you it IS more stable - you're right, it is. I just posted earlier.. I love that I haven't restarted my Ti in over a week, but if that sleep bug pops up on me once more.. well.. oh well
And that is only because I had to install something that required the system to restart...
I am assuming almost everyone (?) will be installing iTunes 2.0.4?
Requires a restart = Uptime = a big fat 0:00
Or are you Unix geeks going to surprise me with some trick to get around it?
<strong>As a final dagger into this thread -
I am assuming almost everyone (?) will be installing iTunes 2.0.4?
Requires a restart = Uptime = a big fat 0:00
Or are you Unix geeks going to surprise me with some trick to get around it?
No real trick. Just force quit the installer when it's done