> In the case of servers, if you absolutely need to run Windows, you
> need to schedule regular reboots, I think there is a utility that
> will allow you to set up a reboot as an AT job. If you can't reboot
> frequently then you need something else. Most Unixes are good, they
> can often run years between reboots, although the occassional reboot
> is good for any machine.

I know that windows is the wrong operating system, but the customers will not let me use Linux. Reboots are scheduled,
but doing it every night is not practical, and once a week is a pain. NT4 runs for several weeks without a problem, so
a monthly cycle is OK.

> In the case of Workstations or stand alones, they should be "rested"
> at the end of the day, if for nothing else then the fact it reduces
> energy usage. 20 years ago when computers were expensive,fragile
> things and energy was relatively cheap, it made sense to let machines
> run, because the cost of replacing components more often, outweighed
> the few dollars per year that it used in energy. Now a machine that
> runs 7/24 can use up more energy in 2-3 years then it costs to
> replace the entire computer, which is robust enough that obsolecence
> will kill it, long before the on/off cycle of the components could
> ever get it.

Exactly the same comment as above. Our office systems get switched on and off each night, but the rail and airport
systems never have a time to shutdown as the sites never close. Perhaps Microsoft should admit that it's software is
not 24/7 and then I could convice the customers that we need Linux in a few places. I dropped BDE years ago because a
power blip could scrap the dBase files, now we have UPS and other protections, but we still can't rely on the core of
the system.

I have some Windows3.1 systems that have never been rebooted in several years - it can be done, so why is everthing
just getting more and more unreliable!

--
Lester Caine
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services