From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: OS/2 is NOT Crashproof!
Date: 22 Nov 92 15:01:01 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Nov22.180113.5437@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
> In article <Joe.005t@twistor.dialix> Joe@twistor.dialix (Joe Katnic) writes:
>>To suggest that because you have some problems, that other users will
>>experience problems of such a nature as to preclude them from using OS/2
>>for mission critical applications is laughable.
> 
> 
> 	To suggest that because you _haven't_ had problems that
> 	no one else does, and that they _aren't_ related to OS/2
> 	is just as inane.


	Agreed.  As I say in another post, I have installed and worked
with many Os/2 machines.  The problems are different from machien to machine.
Some users never experience any problems.  I, personally, get a Trap 008
every couple of days.  Only since the SP have I had this problem so I
highly doubt it is hardware.  I get a system hang where the work place
shell no longer responds and I can't even hit CAD to reboot about once
a day (and I hit ctrl-esc and wait for 15 minutes most of the time to
see if it recovers).
	I get a trap E about once a week.
	I have a good idea of what areas cause these problems:
TE/2 1.2 seems to cause the trap 008's and these happen absolutely
randomly within the running of it.  I can just be sitting there and
tap 008 will pop up. When I am doing "mission critical" things with
the machine I simply don't use Te/2 but no app should be able to bring
down the OS like this.
	The random hangs are almost certainly caused by running
windows Seamlessly.  After closing several seamless windows sessions
if they have crashed or whatever I occasionally get a hang like I
mentioned.  I can hang the system by doing a chkdsk on two partitions
on the same drive at the same time quite often (one hpfs and one fat).
Again, if I am doing something important I simply don't do any of the
above but an OS tha claims to have crash protection shouldn't crash
75% as much as my Amiga did.  
	
	No OS is perfect, I have brough Open Windows on a sparc to 
its knees many times too (thoughw e could recover by logging onto that
machine from another and killing open windows -- if I could kill the
work place shell remotely it would probably take care of my hangs).
	
If I were to put my crashings on a relatively # I would put it like this:

Windows 3.0 crashed on me probably 1 per every hour of use.
Windows 3.1 crashed one me 1 per every 3 hours of use.
OS/2 2.0 GA crashed on me 1 per every 72 hours of use.
OS/2 2.0 SP crashes on me 1 per every 24 hours of use.
Amiga 2000 crashed on me 1 per every 12 hours of use.
Mac system 7 crashes on me 1 per every 120 hours of use.

	This is just MY OWN EXPERIENCE, not scientifically based so
i don't expect to be ripped on with comments like "Well, if you only
crashed system 7 x amount then you aren't using it enough..." or
"Well, we have been controlling the hubble space telescope with OS/2
and it has never crashes ever even when the power went out."

> 	I agree that OS/2 is "good enough" for mission critical 
> 	applications, because when you're talking about something
> 	like that, you're pretty much running that application and
> 	nothing else.  Unless the OS is seriously flawed, this should
> 	not be a problem.  This isn't the same as "stability" because
> 	it's really not using much of what people are hoping to get
> 	from OS/2--running DOS apps concurrently, virtual memory and
> 	so on.
> 

	Again I agree.  I could probably run a BBS on my computer for
months on end without a crash.  But OS/2 doesn't act particularly
stable when it comes to running weird stuff together all the time.  I
push my Os's hard.  Windows couldn't handle it, Os/2 does it better.

> 

=====================================
Brad Wardell
Western Michigan University
Department of Electrical Engineering
SDS
Project Manager
=====================================


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc