Tell me more ×
Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Is there an OS that never ever ever crashes or halts or does any stupid stuff like Windows does. Meaning never seeing BSODs.

share|improve this question
4  
Windows rarely crashes for me. I suspect that Windows is crashing because you're the type of user that would get viruses by clicking on "Picture of us.jpg.exe" – ta.speot.is May 28 '10 at 11:53
I vote against closing this question - I think it's useful and educational. – harrymc May 28 '10 at 11:56
It's also open ended, since all modern operating systems are stable. – ta.speot.is May 28 '10 at 11:58
2  
@taspeotis: If all OS were stable, superuser.com would have much fewer postings. – harrymc May 28 '10 at 12:01
2  
The majority of questions on here are because the user or some piece of software has changed something. Install Windows XP Service Pack 3 out of the box and don't install any third party software. Welcome to stability bliss, population: you – ta.speot.is May 28 '10 at 12:04
show 7 more comments

closed as not constructive by ChrisF, Mehper C. Palavuzlar, MicTech, ta.speot.is, Gnoupi May 28 '10 at 12:18

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.

5 Answers

up vote 8 down vote accepted

You'll never see a BSOD on Linux or the Mac, but you'll see their equivalent in other colors.

While it's true that Linux and Mac are somewhat more stable than Windows, they can also easily be brought to their knees.

There is no reason for Windows to BSOD, unless you have installed crappy software products or drivers, or any other such bad bad actions. And there is also of course the possibility of faulty hardware, which will kill any OS whatsoever.

Since on whatever other operating system that you choose, you can make equally disastrous actions with similar results, I suggest developing more cautious approach to software installation and system administration, and build yourself an arsenal of products for trouble-shooting software and hardware issues, rather than searching for an unbreakable OS.

As always, in any computer installation, the user is the weakest link.

share|improve this answer
"the user is the weakest link." - that's right harrymc, stick it to the user! They've been keeping me in a job since '79. – ta.speot.is May 28 '10 at 11:59

IBM OS/400

never has crashed, never will.

There are reasons why an OS will crash, mainly driver issues. If you build the hardware for the OS and the OS for the hardware, it eliminates that problem.

People who only have experience with desktop OSes, don't realise how stable mainframes are. It is close to a life-altering experience to work with a completely stable, powerfull, well thought out OS like OS/400. It completely changes your point of view.

There's a reason why mainframe guys are snobs. Their stuff is really that much better. Nothing on the desktop even comes close, though the BSDs are reputed to be quite stable.

But it is the polish and finish of OS/400 that sets it apart from the rest. You have to have several years experience with computers and a good few with UNIX to really appreciate OS/400.

I am a serious, dyed-in-the-wool UNIX fanboi, but I was blown away by the depth of thought that went into OS/400. I would love to get a job using one of those babies.

As a simple example, when OS/400 is first installed, it prints out a neatly formatted report of everything installed and the complete hardware configuration it has been installed on. You take the printout and bind it. No desktop OS even has a facility to do that. You have to download addons to get even close.

It's so ridiculously good that you just keep smiling as you discover more stuff. After a few months, I discovered that not only did it come with Windows type file sharing built in, but it also comes with DLLs to support writing Windows programs to access the internal IBM libraries on the IBM partition.

This plus full manuals plus IBM tech support. It costs an arm and a leg, but it just works. Why would anyone ever put up with anything else?

OS/400 has never been hacked, never had a virus.

Of course, personally I use Slackware at home. I install SME Server for my clients, but it's not OS/400.

share|improve this answer
A few issues. First of all, OS/400 was for minicomputers, never for mainframes. Next, OS/400 is discontinued- the follow-on is IBM "i" and runs OS/400 apps in a hosted environment on a non-native Power CPU. – kmarsh May 28 '10 at 12:24
On the other hand, z/OS (the direct descendant of OS/360) is, from what I've heard, a joy to behold. It's the oldest OS in general use nowadays, I think, and has been worked on since then by people trying to make it smooth and reliable. It also had one of the first Open Source communities around it - the software was technically proprietary, but if you had the computer you had the software. – David Thornley May 28 '10 at 14:30
+1 for the enthusiastic and completely unrealistic suggestion :-) – Torben Gundtofte-Bruun Aug 24 '10 at 11:51

I have found that the BIOS to be built into motherboards will only crash in the case of hardware failure. They are the most stable operating system.

Pros:

  • Really stable
  • Updates are free
  • Comes bundled with your computer
  • Most allow dynamic underclocking/overclocking
  • Expose a lot of hardware at a very basic level
  • Crashes indicate a hardware failure

If the BIOS built into your motherboard doesn't fulfill all your functionality (some BIOS' have poor programmability), I have fond memories of the Operating System on my Commodore 64. Rarely had errors except in the case of a bad tape, and on the plus side it boots into a full blown BASIC compiler!

share|improve this answer
It is however good usage to not answer a question you think should be closed. Especially if you vote for it. – Gnoupi May 28 '10 at 12:21
1  
But I like Commodore 64's operating system... – ta.speot.is May 28 '10 at 12:24

Linux based operating systems are pretty stable, which is why majority of servers hosting sites on the net run it.

There are various flavors / distributions, some I can suggest having a look at are Ubuntu and Linux Mint. For a comprehensive list check out DistroWatch.

For some real-world up-time figures there is this thread, with one machine at 355 days at the time of posting.

share|improve this answer
We have a Windows 2003 DC that has been up for 500+ days at a remote site. Ergo, Windows 2003 is the best operating system. – ta.speot.is May 28 '10 at 11:57
Actually, it seems like Windows has some pretty awesome uptime: uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html NETCRAFT CONFIRMS IT! – ta.speot.is May 28 '10 at 12:06
When looking for a stable OS by uptime, you do have to notice what caused the last downtime. Was it a power failure? Physical move? Hardware failure? Reinstalling a vital component? Operator turned it off? Modern high-quality OSs like Windows, MacOSX, and Linux are so reliable (when protected from malware) that these are the more likely causes of downtime. – David Thornley May 28 '10 at 14:35
Sure, we run SBS 2003 servers here, no problem. I kept with the question. – invert May 31 '10 at 9:38

Bad drivers or improperly configured drivers are usually the culprit of most crashes on the various O/S's. Once proper drivers are installed and configured, generally, crashing disappears - windows included. This assumes that the hardware is functioning correctly (i.e. no ram errors or disk errors etc.).

Unfortunately for windows, the average user has a lot of power by default (this is starting to change with windows vista and 7). On windows if the user 'catches' some malware it can take over the whole system and really cause a lot of problems. On most other *nix based systems the user doesn't normally run with a lot of power and a similar infection would only affect the users data, nothing more. That would still be bad, but the O/S would be fine.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.