×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows Fails 8% of the Time

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the i-prefer-to-reboot-only-for-new-kernels dept.

Windows 913

descubes writes "A Journal du Net article reports that about 8% of Windows sessions require a machine reboot. The relevant quote (translated from french) is: "The average rate of failures requiring a system reboot has been measured at around 8% per session. This number varies widely depending on the version of Windows. Windows 2000 has a failure rate of 4%, and NT4 is at 3%, whereas Windows XP is close to 12%." The study was originally made by Acadys and Microcost and gathered data from 1.2M machines belonging to about one thousand companies over a period of one month in seven different countries."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

913 comments

Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265150)

For once some of us don't have to RTFA! Now when we look at the numbers we go ooooh, look MSFT is teh suxx0r! But look at which versions of Windows tend to fail. NT at 3% and Win2k at 4%. NT and Win2k are being run by people with more of a clue than those running XP. XP was aimed more at the home market while NT and 2k were not nearly as much.

So, maybe the article tells more than the blurb, but it would appear to me that the reason that XP crashes more is that the people who are running it could be partly at fault (ie worms, trojans, poor hardware choices with outdated drivers).

Personally I use 2k at work and XP at home (for my Windows machines) and I can't remember a crash for either. Work is a bit of a stretch as I do shut it down daily but the XP machine hums along just fine without problems.

YMMV.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10265183)

I'm tired of reading Microsoft sponsored research that attempts to make Windows look better than it really is.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10265222)

I'm tired of reading Microsoft sponsored research that attempts to make Windows look better than it really is.

True, very very true, but honestly my Linux machine had crashed twice in August whereas my XP machine hasn't skipped a beat.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (5, Insightful)

ShizCakes (799018) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265209)

I came here to say exactly what you said. The amount of clueless people downloading spyware, viruses, and just general crap onto thier computers is ridiculous, and I'm suprised that the failure rate isn't higher. However, if we were to take a look at the professional usage only, where there are IT depts and such supposedly taking care of the machines, I think that the numbers would be drastically reversed.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (4, Insightful)

MalaclypseTheYounger (726934) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265214)

I have a Windows 2000 Server and a Windows 2000 Professional machine that I swear to GOD I NEVER have to reboot, unless I'm installing some piece of hardware/software that requires it.

I think at one point I had the server up for ~180 days straight, I was amazed at the totals in the "process run-time" in Task Manager.

Windows works great, for people who know how to use them. (Same can be said for Linux, Mac, etc).

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (2, Insightful)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265263)

In the MS world, 180 days is a miracle. In the *nix world it's rutine.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (1, Funny)

strictfoo (805322) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265313)

rutine - is that some Unix program or something?

[fooboy@mail /root]# rutine
bash: rutine: command not found
[fooboy@mail /root]# man rutine
No manual entry for rutine

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (4, Insightful)

linsys (793123) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265275)

"I think at one point I had the server up for ~180 days straight"

You say that like it's some accomplishment, well I guess it is for a WinBox, but in My World (*nix world) I would be very disapointed if my boxes where up any less that 180+ days!

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (2, Interesting)

bastardadmin (660086) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265331)

"Windows works great, for people who know how to use them. (Same can be said for Linux, Mac, etc)."

You've hit the nail right on the head, and done it without any OS-based zealotry.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (1)

aurelian (551052) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265333)

I have a Windows 2000 Server and a Windows 2000 Professional machine that I swear to GOD I NEVER have to reboot, unless I'm installing some piece of hardware/software that requires it.

That's right, presumably you rarely touch those boxes so nothing changes. Now try running and using one of the desktop versions mentioned in the article. (Which is in French so few of us can read it but hey, this is slashdot anyway).

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (5, Interesting)

galaxy300 (111408) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265347)

Let me be the first to say "180 days? Wow!!!".

Just kidding. Although I do love the story about the Novell server at some University (in Florida, I believe) which had been running for several years with no reboots and no problems. One day some brilliant tech decided to look for the server and realized that it wasn't there. Nowhere to be found.

Fast forward a couple more years, they were doing construction, and found the server had somehow been put in a closet that had been bricked over - meaning that the server had been running without intervention for close to 5 years without a reboot or software updated. Go Novell! Running on Compaq hardware, IIRC.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (5, Interesting)

aurelian (551052) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265223)

Personally I use 2k at work and XP at home (for my Windows machines) and I can't remember a crash for either.

This is about rebooting. A crash is not the only time Windows forces you to reboot. You say you shut down daily - only Windows users would regard that as normal.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265260)

This is about rebooting. A crash is not the only time Windows forces you to reboot. You say you shut down daily - only Windows users would regard that as normal.

I shut down daily because I have to not because the machine has to. I am bound by the rules set in place by my employer. If they want the machines off when I leave I do it.

In fact, I would guess that outside of IT not many places keep their machines up and running 24/7.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10265303)

what about eco-freaks, i shut down my home linux box daily. that 400 watt power supply 24hr a day actually does add up over the month. noticed about a $5 drop in my power bill out of $20.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (2, Interesting)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265317)

what's so wrong with shutting down daily?

If you have your PC at home, you shut down at night so you can save electricity, and stop the noise from the fans.

If you're at work, sure you have less incentive to shut down, except to save electricity again. (save the planet, man)

Personally, I leave my w2k work box running all the time, but even then it gets shut down for the weekend.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (2, Interesting)

fitten (521191) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265364)

I have (and have had in the past) many Win2K boxes and Windows XP boxes that run 24/7 except for forced reboots from software patches and/or hardware installation.

One Win2K server I helped maintain had a better uptime than most of our Suns and other Unix boxes. Mostly because it was well protected from the 'net and we didn't patch it.

As far as other OSs, my Linux servers also run 24/7 and have a high uptime. However, as of late, we've been notified (by the various distribution patch notification tools) of more software patches than on Windows by a long shot. My SuSE 9.1 Professional box, for instance, hasn't gone a week without at least two patch sessions for the last two months, but only a few of those have required reboots (kernel patch).

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10265225)

remember XP doesn't "crash" anymore, it just reboots, which could be excused as just some random power glitch and may go by without thinking it's actually windows fault. after all, some times linux just reboots when the lights dim too. XP doesn't need the lights dimming, but then, maybe i just didn't notice it "this time".

if you turn the BSoD back to "stay on error message" rather then "just reboot" you might start to notice XP crashing again.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (5, Informative)

Tenareth (17013) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265229)

Our entire user base (Over 1000 machines) has been moved from WindowsNT Workstation and Win2k workstation to Windows XP as a global rollout for our company (40,000+ machines). Given the same userbase, and same admins building the machines we have seen XP behave much worse than NT or 2000 ever did.

This is in a completely controlled environment, where we can use GPO to insure extra software is not installed on the machines, etc... unlike the older installed base.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (1)

StonedYoda47 (732257) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265240)

Not always true. Alot of businesses run W2k on their machines. At my work, 2k crashes alot as a result of the programs we are forced to run. I work as an IT auditor, and I see alot of different businesses. They run 2k because it's more stable, and most of the people running it on their machines at these places are clueless.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (5, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265248)

Fine, don't RTFA, but could you consider reading the summary, maybe?
gathered data from 1.2M machines belonging to about one thousand companies
These weren't home users!

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (2, Informative)

Welsh Dwarf (743630) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265259)

I suggest you do RTFA, or at least try, all these machines were in a buissness context, and the largest proportion of XPs were in firms that specialised in computer consultancy (SSII in French) .

Therefor these machines were being used by people with more than just a 'clue', and were probably locked down to prevent spyware installation and the like.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265288)

all these machines were in a buissness context, and the largest proportion of XPs were in firms that specialised in computer consultancy

Does the article say that they use Firefox? Does it say that these users aren't bringing trojans, viruses, and worms onto their machines?

Yeah, I work in a corporate environment yet I know plenty of people that surf the web at work completely unaware of what they could be putting on their machines.

Let me guess, you automatically assume because it says it's a corporate environment that the employees aren't fucking their machines up?

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (1)

StevenHenderson (806391) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265291)

Now when we look at the numbers we go ooooh, look MSFT is teh suxx0r!

Hilarious. :)

Personally I use 2k at work and XP at home (for my Windows machines) and I can't remember a crash for either. Work is a bit of a stretch as I do shut it down daily but the XP machine hums along just fine without problems.

I dont shut down my work comp and have no problems. You are most correct in your assessment here.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (1)

Bender_ (179208) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265306)

The question is also what they have measured. Situation where a reboot was really required or just simple reboots by number. Many clueless users believe that rebooting fixes many problems, and just do so without trying anything else. I am pretty sure the same userbase would also reboot Linux frequently.

RE: Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10265319)

More reasons the data is skewed:

Many people leave their computers on all the time, and never turn them off. When a program eventually crashes, they reboot. Their computer might have been running for a week without problems, but that is one crash out of one, 100% failure.

Secondly, most windows users are not adept at fixing problems. They will have the same problem crash their machine over and over again and do nothing to fix it. This drives up the rate of failure.

Of course, all those RPC exploits and security holes make it even worse, so windows is pretty bad. But if you gave the average windows user some linux binaries to compile, they'd probably print them out on their bubblejet and take them to Future Shop for help.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (1)

Mordaximus (566304) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265328)

"For once some of us don't have to RTFA!"

You should have. They mention at the bottom of the article one of the best practice recommendations is to adopt the use of open source systems.

FYI the article does say that professionals prefer Windows 2000 over XP 83% of the time. Or something like that.

Re:Perhaps is the user base of those versions? (1)

millwall (622730) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265362)

the reason that XP crashes more is that the people who are running it could be partly at fault (ie worms, trojans, poor hardware choices with outdated drivers).

Obviously this could be the case, but since the data wasn't gathered from home users I doubt that the worms, trojnas and spy ware etc. contributed much to the result.

Win 3.1 (1, Funny)

Hawkeye477 (163893) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265151)

Now why didnt they do a study on Win 3.1? I mean that was the only good windows version! :)

Re:Win 3.1 (1)

Sindri (207695) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265194)

"I mean that was the only good windows version!"

At least it would have scored a lot higher in that study.

A bit too high.. (0)

LucasALC (701722) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265153)

Those figures look a bit too high, especially for XP.. don't you think?

Re:A bit too high.. (4, Insightful)

Zog The Undeniable (632031) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265238)

The figures make perfect sense if you consider NT is on SP6a, 2000 is on SP4 but XP is only on SP2. Give them time to work the bugs out etc.

Given that XP isn't just Win2K SP5 but is in fact Win2K with an awful lot of extra chrome tacked on, it was never going to be more stable to begin with.

Re:A bit too high.. (1)

mm0mm (687212) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265271)

Those figures look a bit too high, especially for XP.. don't you think?

No.

Re:A bit too high.. (1)

CommanderData (782739) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265272)

Honestly, we know better than that. Windows does not fail that often in the hands of competent people. I have two laptops that get daily heavy use by me (one with 2000, the other with XP) and they do NOT crash. I probably reboot them once or twice a month, I prefer to put them in standby or hibernate when not in use.

The problem is id10t users/businesses who don't install patches/upgrades, insist on using Outlook and Internet Explorer, opening every attachment they receive, browsing questionable web sites, and even purposefully installing spyware shit toolbars and whatnot so they can have a little animated buddy or see what the weather is (look out a window for god's sake!)...

Re:A bit too high.. (1)

linsys (793123) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265336)

You know I don't remember the last time I got a Linux Virus, Spyware (oh what's that spyware removal program called for Linux, oh wait there isn't ONE!), had issues opening up ANY attachment etc.... even those ones that said I LOVE YOU, my linux box never had a problem with them... odd...

Since you REBOOT your laptops every month or so then you can't really make any statements about the availability of a Win2K box and it's abaility to stay up.

I know most of the time when I run windowsupdate I have to reboot my system, when I run apt-get update install on FedoraCore2 it never has told me to reboot yet....

Re:A bit too high.. (1)

PReDiToR (687141) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265293)

Not really. I tend to live on the latest driver releases and even the WindowsUpdate drivers crash my machine (Via Rhine 2 NIC Onboard).

The last set of Catalyst drivers for my Radeon 9600 kept crashing the graphics card to black screen, and DirectX isn't as reliable as it was at version 7.0.

12% of the time average, I fit in there at about 8 out of every hundred times I run WindowsXP.

Re:A bit too high.. (1)

LilMikey (615759) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265311)

A bit too high in what sense? Too high for what should be expected from the most popular OS in the world? Then yes, without a doubt. Higher than the crash rate I'd expect? I'd so hell no. It actually seems a bit low to me but let me qualify that: Most people don't reboot their machine *unless* it crashes. It's not like grandma is considering the length of her uptime. Unfortunately, the damn things in Frech so we don't really know if they took that into consideration.

Does my XP machine at work crash 12% of the time... sure. It's development machine so it's much much more than that. In fact, I'd say 95% of my reboots are from OS crashes. Alternatively, my Fedora boxen, one of which is a development machine, has completely crashed once since it's been installed (thanks to nVidia). I don't do AS MUCH development on it but a 95 to 1 ratio is pretty damning.

Regardless, me nor most people I work with and talk to find it suprising the Windows desktops have poor uptime marks and I seriously doubt anyone would be surprised to find Windows desktops uptime marks lower than most alternative OSes.

Is that bad? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10265162)

I thought it was just normal to reboot 35 times a day.

Re:Is that bad? (-1, Flamebait)

desktop_dope (557540) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265266)

Normal if you're a dingbat that can't configure a proper Windows system -- which is about the easiest thing to do, in IT.

That's funny, cause.... (-1, Flamebait)

mrn121 (673604) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265167)

Interestingly, it was also concluded that French surrender 100% of the time.

Biased (5, Interesting)

-kertrats- (718219) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265172)

And what is the reboot rate of various Linux distros? Unless they're willing to do a comparison under the same protocols, I very much hope that no one here points to this as more proof of needing to switch to Linux, even though I know it will come up.

Re:Biased (1)

linsys (793123) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265230)

"I very much hope that no one here points to this as more proof of needing to switch to Linux, even though I know it will come up."

This is MORE proof you need to switch to Linux!! ;)

Truth is I don't need this article to tell me that *nix is more superior to Win2k, XP, NT etc... I have had *nix boxes running for more then 200 days on AVERAGE I have never seen a win2k box do that..

Re:Biased (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10265237)

I have had my linux mandrake machine on for two months now without a reboot. And i use it as my desktop computer.

Re:Biased (3, Informative)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265280)

And what is the reboot rate of various Linux distros? Unless they're willing to do a comparison under the same protocols, I very much hope that no one here points to this as more proof of needing to switch to Linux, even though I know it will come up.

I would suggest that my "per session" rate of failures in Linux is quite high. Sure, I don't get kernel panics, but if X locks badly (locking out the keyboard) then my session is pretty much gone. Rebooting X is considerably faster than rebooting the machine.

The real reason that my "per session" rate would be high is that I hardly ever log out. I run a session until something comes out that convinces me to log out (travel, new kernel, or some sort of problem). Sessions last weeks or months.

Jedidiah.

Re:Biased (1)

gmletzkojr (768460) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265312)

Actually, I would ask to extend it even further to also include any major OS. Windows, Linux, OS X, etc. Let's see a real comparison of multiple OSes, and not just bashing of any one OS.

Also, it would be interesting to see the progression of stability over different releases of the OS - for example, how does Win 3.X stack up to XP? It might provide some useful metrics regarding the relative progress of each OS in stability.

Re:Biased (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10265318)

Stop hyperventilating, you're the only one who's mentioned Linux so far.

Personally, I use Linux and I don't give a shit how many times Windows crashes, because well, I don't use Windows.

Yeah right (1, Funny)

lindsay felton (779998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265175)

Maybe if you don't keep your install patched, this might be true. But I've been running the same XP install for a year, and I reboot maybe once every couple of weeks. 12% of the time? I'm gonna call bullshit. Plus, they're french, so we know they're retarded anyway.

A feature! (3, Funny)

doktorstop (725614) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265176)

It's a feature, not a bug! Rebooting 1)cleans up memory 2) makes you do something useful 3) makes you aquanted with the hardware 4) teaches you elementary computer skills

Somewhat misleading (5, Insightful)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265178)

If you leave your computer running until it needs a reboot, your "failure rate" by their definition is 100%, even if you reboot only once every 6 months.

Re:Somewhat misleading (1)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265246)

I wonder what else might factor into that failure rate... installing a Windows Update patch (or any other software, for that matter) that requires a reboot... also, how many of those failures are due to hardware problems?

I probably restarted 50 times on XP before I figured out that the problem was my stupid discount DDR chip. I had ruled out hardware because I never had a problem in Linux. Turns out Mandrake wasn't using that part of the memory. Hmm.

Indeed (1)

Professeur Shadoko (230027) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265295)

I never switch off my computer. It is a laptop, so when I don't use it, I let it enter sleep mode. And I resume the *same* session later.

So I really have a failure rate of 100%, I guess.

Don't mod this insightful! (1, Insightful)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265323)

Blargh. This isn't insightful.

"needs a reboot" on a UNIX machine usually means "they released a security update for the kernel", or "the power went out". "needs a reboot" on a Windows machine (yes, I use one) usually means "it bluescreened", or "things are getting slow and weird". At work, it's a pain to get everything running again so I try to avoid it, but I still need to reboot about every 2 weeks or so.

To be fair, much of the instability is caused by shitty 3rd party drivers, but that still doesn't address the root problem of resource leaks and other bugs.

I don't think that's quite it... (2, Informative)

indros (211103) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265184)

Because if you notice the sampling in the post (rtfp?), it states:

The study was originally made by Acadys and Microcost and gathered data from 1.2M machines belonging to about one thousand companies over a period of one month in seven different countries."

Emphasis mine.

Re:I don't think that's quite it... (1)

indros (211103) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265221)

Whoops.. my previous post was meant to be made in response to this comment:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=122040&ci d= 10265150

Hmm. (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265191)

Does this include computers being mauled by worms and spyware because the user is John Q. Clicksyesalot?

Not all cleanly installed updated boxen though eh? (3, Interesting)

DaLiNKz (557579) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265192)

One does need to wonder under what conditions those computers were in. My Windows XP boxes hardly ever crash, and if so usually its a hardware failure (Video card overheats, processor overheats [welcome to Florida!]). All the computers we have at the college run Windows XP, specially tweaked to keep students doing school work [not dorm boxes] and will clean themselves up when they are rebooted.. these boxes too usually never fail unless its hardware, and operate all day with many different users per day. I also wonder, since my views are somewhat cleaned by our nice IT folks at the college, what these computers they monitored were like. Was there ad-ware on a few? A few viruses maybe? It happens, and IT can't always be there to fix those problems.

My point simply is usually its not Windows XP faulting for me, its something else not getting along with it. Be it [insert]ware, or hardware issues. Good example is I hardly ever reboot this computer, it has easily gained weeks of uptime, usually only shutting down due to thunderstorms taking out the electrical lines.

Re:Not all cleanly installed updated boxen though (1)

Proaxiom (544639) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265289)

I agree with you. The article isn't very specific on how those stats were tallied, but they look extremely suspicious to me.

Back in the day when I used NT 4 for a lot of my work, I had failures requiring reboot typically two or three times a week. This was doing application development.

On Windows 2000, the only system crashes or lockups I get are either due to hardware problems, or else due to device drivers (for some reason SoftICE periodically crashes my Win2K box). But I typically go weeks without a problem.

I have never had Windows XP crash, although admittedly I have used it less than either of the above two.

In my view, the article's stats just don't pass the bulls&!t test.

don't mean to be rude but (1)

thesadjester (87558) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265195)

windows xp is the evolution of 2000, and was geared just as much for businesses (the professional version) as homes (home version). The prof and home versions also share the same kernel..

I think this article mixed up windows xp with windows millenium....

Re:don't mean to be rude but (1)

desktop_dope (557540) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265327)

Not necessarily ... my XP Home machine (on two-year-old, approved hardware) needs rebooting *much more often* than my Windows 2000 Professional machine (on five-year-old, approved hardware).

The most important message here... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10265198)

... is that the windows faliure rate is INCREASING.

babelfish translation with usual mistakes (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10265199)


28% of the time devoted to the couple transport/Internet, 2% with Excel

To launch the impression

15/09/2004.

What makes the employees one to their computer? It is with this thorny that question has study undertaken by Microcost - in collaboration with Acadys - sort to answer. Year investigation whose objectifies is not to supervises the users goal who wishes to poses the bases of has reflexion around the rationalization of the costs have glances management of park.

During one month, 1 285 500 working scannés stations were near has thousand of companies distributed in 7 European countries (France, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Spain, England, Italy).

First carryforward, has to use spends one average two hours and fifteen minutes per day one its dated-processing station. With time that it devotes for more than one quarter (28%) to Internet/transport couple. The remainder of time, the applications office automation, the trades applications and the Windows to explore respectively occupy 17%, 14% and 9% of the use of year employee. The 17% of the office automation applications station-wagon up into 15% for the 2% and text processing for Excel.

With company thus may find it beneficial any to modify its policy of software licence according to the use in order not to pay has complete office automation continuation principal yew the exploited tool remains the text processing. According to the study, 10 software concentrates 67% of the use. With figure which amounts even to 89% in the industrial sector, whereas it is limited to 42% At the service companies.

In more of the dated relating to the uses of the software, the FRIENDLY software (At the origin of information receuillies for the study) makes it possible to obtain figures have glances reliability of the operating systems Microsoft. Thus, the average failure misses requiring has restarting of the system is measured around 8% per session. This appears fluctuates largely according to the version of Windows. Indeed, Windows 2000 obtains has failure misses of 4% and NT4 of 3% whereas Windows XP flirte with the 12%.

Lastly, the study reveals the use of paid have glances impression. Zero paper is not topicality since 10 pages are printed one average per day and to use. They corresponds to 3 gold 4 orders of impression of which the half are intended for local printers, other half with printers networks. However, yew the cost of year reaches impression has few hundred of euros when it is carried out one has printer network, it is multiplied by five when it is carried out one has local printer, because of the consumable price of the ones.

To also note, without surprised, that 95% of the stations customers are equipped with has Windows environment, version 2000 being prevalent At the professionals. In place under 42% of the stations, this version largely replaced Windows NT 4 which counts nothing any more goal 16%. Have for Windows XP, it breads to find its public, in particular At the industrialists who choose to 83% for Windows 2000. Only the service companies cuts 5% of to their dated-processing park under general Windows XP while the average is around the 2%.

Behind all these figures, the company of council recommends several solutions to the dated-processing directions in order to rationalize to their management of dated-processing park. Among these recalls of good control, the company quotes successively the recourse to the light customer, the uses of software Open source, the optimization of the management of the licences and the increase in the duration of renewal of the material park have well have software.

And linux.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10265208)

All my linux sessions need a reboot when I'm finished working, because my mouse doesn't work anymore after my system comes up from hibernate to disk.
However I never had to reboot, in Windows XP, except when I upgraded my Memory.

amazing... (0)

Chuck Bucket (142633) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265211)

I can't believe those fail that often. I haven't used windows daily for years now, so I'm a bit out of the loop. When an app crashes in Linux there's no rebooting needed, just some minor cursing at lost data.

Regardless of how entrenched Windows is in the world, I still can't believe more ppl wouldn't want to try a different OS less than putting up with the cra...

CB(_#@>>>>
(signup for the ipod and I'll give you a free gmail acct!)

reboot is necessary (1, Insightful)

LinuxRulz (678500) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265219)

yeah! Like we're not forced to reboot...

One of my friend had an uptime of 1 month with is XP box.
Considering he does a lot on it and that he was able to last that long without being forced by "setup wizards" to reboot, this is a record.
But when XP runs that long without reboot, it REALLY becomes unstable.
He showed me and I had never seen so much unstability. Every progs crash. That was terrible.

I do believe you don't need to reboot often, but it still is necessary.

Re:reboot is necessary (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10265286)

Then your friend is an idiot. The ONLY time I reboot is when it is required by an installation or a patch or something.

Wait, I take that back. I probalby have rebooted once or twice in the past year with XP when things got werid. I'd hardly call that 12%.

Too bad the article is in French and I cannot know the polling criteria.

Mine never fails... (0)

_PimpDaddy7_ (415866) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265224)

Because I shutdown nightly :)

Re:Mine never fails... (1)

rwven (663186) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265284)

Well, mine failed less when i DIDNT shut down. i had it up for a month once and it was fine. mine started acting like an idiot when i started shutting down nightly. (i move into my own apt and had to pay the electric bill. 400w P/S != good electric bill...)

No way... (4, Insightful)

jmcmunn (307798) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265228)

I find it hard to believe Windows XP crashes 12% of the time. I run XP at work and at home. Here at work I am building, compiling, crashing code, running about 20 things at once and I almost never need to reboot. I shut down on weekends, and sometimes at night to save the company some dough, but I rarely need to reboot.

At home, I play games, surf the web, write in MS Office...all of the typical things a normal user would do. Plus I do things that a "power user" might do. Newsgroups, Irc, nothing too great...and I NEVER reboot. I would say on average I need to reboot about once a month when Seti@home decides to get flakey or something. Does that count as needing to reboot...after a month!!?? Then I guess it needs to 100% of the time.

If people need to reboot 12% of the time, then they are doing something wrong. It's not the OS, but more the user in my opinion. XP is a stable system, and does a good job of keeping my machines running.

Win98, however, I would say needs a reboot 50% of the time. The other 50% you have no choice and it dies without a reboot.

Re:No way... (1)

Winterblink (575267) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265282)

I agree with you completely, my XP Pro machine at home has two regular users on it constantly with the user switching enabled, so there's two "sessions" active at once. I consider myself a power user as well, I'm always doing at least a dozen things at once. With all that, I can say the only times I've been required to restart my PC is after a critical update that requires a restart to take effect. Otherwise the machine is always on, and always has at least a half dozen programs running actively across two sessions. 12%? I call bullshit. :)

Re:No way... (1)

sehryan (412731) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265322)

I wonder if they were measuring XP Home or XP Pro. I have noticed XP Pro is much more stable than XP Home. I have noticed that Home has the old school 9x problem of getting worse the longer it is installed, until the only thing that can save it is a complete wipe and reinstall. Pro, on the other hand, is very solid, and I have never noticed a decrease in performance over time.

Re:No way... (0, Redundant)

Comatose51 (687974) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265329)

I think it has more to do with people who run XP vs. 2000. From my experience, 2000 is used in offices and the more hardcore computer users. Those machines will be better taken care of. XP, on the other hand, is everywhere. So those machines will face problems like spyware, stuff loading up at boot, viruses, and unpatched Windows.

Re:No way... (1)

scruffy (29773) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265332)

I mainly use Linux, but 12% reboots for XP seems far too high. Maybe they should differentiate machines loaded with spyware and those that aren't.

Unfortunatley (2)

rwven (663186) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265231)

Since SP2, the driver support has gone kapoot or something and about 30% of the time i have to reboot now because my vid card goes nuts and gets the refresh rate all wrong or something of that nature... I'm in that "should i just drop it altogether" stage....

Only 8%? (3, Insightful)

FTL (112112) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265235)

My value is 100%. Both for Windows and for Linux. The reason is that my computers are always on. The only time I reboot is when it crashes. So that means _every_ session ends with a crash.

Of course the big difference is uptime. My Windows (98) box has been up for 48 hours and is starting to feel sluggish, whereas my Linux box has been running for 4 months.

What do we know? (3, Interesting)

Lucas Membrane (524640) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265236)

What's a 'session'? They give me XP at work. Not my idea of a good time. I reboot XP when I don't understand what's going on, but usually I don't know if XP has failed. It seems to have some problem with degradation of the management of some resource (maybe memory) over very long sessions (a week or more). Then, when the machine gets sluggish and recalcitrant, I reboot. But maybe it's just the network admin spying on my machine or something that I don't even see. Damfino.

So windows is more stable than my linux box! (-1, Flamebait)

JollyFinn (267972) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265242)

F****ng drivers for VIA based gfx chip!
[Yes when X dies and takes keyboard with it the box is practicly dead if I don't have other boxes which could access to it.]

What exactly do the numbers mean? (1)

Zackbass (457384) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265249)

I run my XP box 24/7 and get 2-4 months of uptime. I would venture to guess that about 10% of my sessions require a reboot, simply for the fact that I don't start any new sessions other than when something fails or is upgraded. If I never did planned upgrades my session failure would be around 100%.

Windows XP does not crash (-1, Flamebait)

michael path (94586) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265253)

After a 5 minute invasion from the battleship Microsoft, the French journalists have surrendered more favorable numbers:
Windows XP does not crash. We smell bad.

Now wait a sec (1)

EightBits (61345) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265254)

This is interesting because I migrated my network from NT4 to 2K to XP and I have seen the reverse trend. NT4 seemed to BSOD quite regularly and I have seen reduced BSODs as we migrated o XP. I understand that they are not talking about BSODs only, but most of my machines seem to fail on BSODs more than anything else and that is pretty rare.

Puh-lease (1, Troll)

sethadam1 (530629) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265269)

I know it's very en vogue to hate Microsoft here, but let's be honest. XP is 1000 times as stable as 2000, but it's with this trade off: device drivers and bad hardware can crash the system.

I've been using XP since the Devil's Own gold disc was out in August 2001, and I've experienced a failure exactly one time. It was due to a bad, unsigned driver.

On the other hand, I have had several reasons to reboot my Windows servers, but in truth, I've had to reboot my Linux servers too. Windows 2003 is a HUGE improvement, and at the same time, my newer Linux servers run for ages without so much as a second glance.

My Linux desktop has lots of applications crash, and frequently - X crashes semi-regularly, and my applications are frequently hit or miss.

The only reason XP needs a reboot more frequently is this: people don't know what they're doing. They don't apply patches, they don't have current AV or spyware protection, and they reboot as the first measure of troubleshooting.

I love Linux, and I want Microsoft to get crushed in court, but I know crap when I hear it. Windows is not as bad a product as it used to be, plain and simple.

XP is X-P (1)

Ukoku (718820) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265276)

I never have problems with Windows. Ever. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for ever doubting them. And 8 is way less than, say, fifty, so it's nothing to get in a tizzy about. Right? Right?!?

But really... is anyone that surprised?

My French is rusty .... (5, Insightful)

rogerz (78608) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265277)

... but if the article does not quantify this failure "rate" as mean-time-beetween-failure (MTBF), then the statistic is worthless. 8% of "sessions" requiring reboot is meaningless, without defining how long is a session.

Define "require" (2, Insightful)

bastardadmin (660086) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265290)

I would be interested to know what passes for a required reboot.

Quite often it was an issue of restarting a service that "required" a reboot.

Then there are the times when the "required" reboot can be achieved by (heaven forfend) logging off and logging on again.

Windows 2000 was definitely better at cutting out spurious reboots than XP. Someone made a point about the user bases for the OSs being different... I would point out that a fair number of large corporations use XP Pro on the desktop, primarily because it is even more manageable than Win2K Pro under AD, which kind of sinks the idea that XP was designed as a home user's OS.

What really mystifies me is the low percentage of Windows NT4 sessions that require reboots... WTF.
I worked with that OS for years and that just doesn't seem right to me.

It's french, what do you expect. (-1, Offtopic)

Blitzenn (554788) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265300)

It's a french article, what do you expect? WE all know you can't write stable code in a language like 'French'. I expect that a french version of windows would crash more often. Maybe if they learn to speak a real language, they will get better results.

_Let the facts speak for themselves!

(This should stir the pot, even if it is meant in good fun!)(No real offense meant here, just showing how you can interpret things in a fashion to beat up anyone you want to, BUT IT MUST BE MS's FAULT!)

Translation from French (2, Funny)

scotay (195240) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265335)

My French is a little rusty, but this article claims that XP is a hamster and NT4 smelled of elderberry.

Actually, 100% of Windows XP sessions fail (1)

Cryogenes (324121) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265341)

at least for me, because I only start a new session after a failure of the previous one (ok, not quite true, occasionally one has to reboot after an install).

On the other hand, a session typically runs for a few months.

Bad Users (1)

fetus (322414) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265350)

I use XP, I don't install spyware or other memory hogs. I literally never restart. Sometimes the user is to blame...

XP unstable? I think not. (2, Insightful)

BlurredOne (813043) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265358)

I support an office which is running W2K on the servers (about 40 of them) and about 300 XP Pro workstations. Since switching from NT to XP, I would have to say that the failure/crash/reboot ratio has dropped considerably. Before the switch it was almost daily that I would have to tell someone to reboot their computer. With XP, I have never told someone to reboot their computer. In fact, my workstation (which gets abused alot more than users workstations) has been up for 4 months now without any issues. I think it all comes down to proper education for the users and IT personel; and proper administration of the computers.

Obviously a Biased account (2, Informative)

Matey-O (518004) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265360)

We've got 1200 workstations and another 250 servers. Moving to a managed XP/windows 2003 server environment with the usual seasonings (virus scanning, hotfix management) GREATLY improved our system stability and reduced Helpdesk calls.

Like the linux quotes often say, I only reboot my XP box for patches and hardware updates. (which usually means about once a month for the hot fix updates)

The only guy in our group bitching about XP is the token Mac dude, who screwed up the box doing SOMETHING about a year ago and refuses to reinstall the known good corporate image. (a 10-20 minute process)

The Windows users are eating plenty of poultry (5, Interesting)

ShatteredDream (636520) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265361)

in my CS department. The amount of crow that is getting passed around is amazing these days as many are being forced to switch to Linux or MacOS X for class in the 400 levels and they realize "uhhh those UNIX guys were right about Windows." The irony of it is that we Mac users are usually very good at helping them get started with OSX.

Still, we can't blame Microsoft for a lot of the instability since there are so many users out there using terrible and/or outdated drivers. Microsoft cannot be blamed for the quality of the drivers that most Windows users have because they didn't write them.

Of course I will say this about Windows. It is nice for the first few months, but then it just begins to become as sensually appealing as a rotten piece of bait fish left on your back porch for a few days in the sun. My Macs frequently have several times the uptimes of the Windows PCs I hear about and the Windows users are shocked, "why are 8 weeks of uptime, your PowerBook is still fast and usable."

What??? 8%. That's a little too high. (1)

liquidzero4 (566264) | more than 9 years ago | (#10265363)

Seriously... I'm not a huge fan of MS but I rarely ever need to reboot any of my XP machines. Unless it's a required reboot after new HW or SW is installed. I have some serious doubts about the accuracy of those statitics.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...