I have been running NT Workstation since NT 3.51. I rarely have to
reboot. Usually I can run weeks without. I find that stability
excellent. Even when I have an ill behaved app, I can always kill it
without affecting anything else running. Sometimes stability problems
are caused by the drivers for certain cards. If you're having network
problems, see if the vendor as newer drivers for their card. Put on the
latest NT service pack.

John Zoltak
North American Mfg Co

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin Scott [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 1998 2:23 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      [HP3000-L] Win NT workstation: How are the emperor's
> clothes holding up?
>
> This is somewhat off-topic, but...
>
> I remember when NT 4.0 came out how many people claimed it was so much
> more stable as a workstation and development platform than Windows 95
> was.  Lots of people I respect switched to it and reported vast
> improvements.
>
> I switched from 95 to NT over a year ago after Windows 95 melted down
> completely on me after getting more and more unstable over time.  NT
> was wonderfully stable in comparison.
>
> Now I've been running NT about as long as I had been running Win 95
> when
> it started becoming unstable, and I'm starting to have all the same
> sort
> of problems on NT that I had on Windows 95.
>
> I'm having to reboot once or twice a day due to the networking system
> getting clogged up to the point that no data will transfer anymore,
> running FrameMaker results in window controls and display elements
> being
> drawn incorrectly until reboot, etc., etc.
>
> I'm beginning to feel that much of the perceived superiority of NT was
> due
> simply to the fact that upgrading to it forced most people to
> essentially
> do a clean install, which resulted in a clean and stable environment,
> and
> that over time all the assorted software that gets installed onto the
> machine (and possibly later incompletely deinstalled) leaves you with
> the
> same kind of flaky patchwork operating system environment as Windows
> 95,
> with all the problems attendant there to.
>
> Certainly NT is much better in many areas than 95, but when it comes
> down
> to whether it is fundamentally more robust and stable when used in a
> real-life developer workstation environment, I'm not sure it's really
> any
> better than 95 was.  Install programs still vomit files all over the
> disk,
> happily replacing whatever critical shared DLL files that they feel
> like,
> and none of NT's security or kernel features seem to be used to
> prevent
> applications from doing whatever their developers felt like to your
> system.
>
> So, I'm interested in whether this is just me or not.  How are other
> people
> finding the reliability of NT as a *workstation* platform over time?
>
> G.