RADIFIED
PC Stability Factors

Posted:
02.dec.2001

P
A
G
E

O
N
E

O
F

T
H
R
E
E

Now that CPUs contain over 50 million transistors and are capable of processing information at clockrates exceeding 3,000 Megahertz [3 GigaHertz], raw performance no longer carries the importance it once did.

Certainly, speed will always have its place. But it's no longer the primary focus. Rather, today's PC enthusiast is shifting a critical eye toward system stability.

I contend that it doesn't matter how fast a Ferrari can go .. if it keeps stalling every few miles.

Likewise, it doesn't matter how many Gigahertz a particular PC might be rated for .. if it keeps crashing, locking up, or spontaneously rebooting while you're trying to work (or play).

It's difficult to indulge your technolust if your computer is always crashing.

Background

When a tech site reviews a particular hardware component, they generally do so on a stripped-down, bare-bones, benchmarking rig .. with nothing installed except a fresh copy of an operating system and a few savory benchmarking programs. They'll likely open one program at a time, run the benchmark, and close it before opening the next. If they're meticulous, they'll even reboot before running the next benchmark.

But is this how you and I use our systems? Not hardly. This minimalist approach to system configuration works best for benchmarking hardware components, because it minimizes the chance for incidental operations (such as virus scanning) that might interfere with the benchmark and distort the results.
S
This is very different from the way you and I [the home user, or PC enthusiast] configure and use our PCs. We like to load our systems with plenty of goodies such as:

And we like to fill our systems with lots of software programs. The problem is that each new software program, and each new component, increases the potential for a quirky compatibility glitch.

Everyone's system is different. We have different hardware, and we install different software. And ifm we have the same software, we're likely to configure it differently than someone else. All of which means our systems are unique, and therefore our problems, too, are likely to be unique.

Indeed, every new thing we attempt to do with our PC, and each new program that we launch (multitasking), increases the chance of generating a quirky compatibility glitch.

As you might imagine, hardware & software manufacturers are not motivated to share this with us. Can you blame them? They would rather focus our attention on the benefits of purchasing and installing their products. It's Marketing 101.

You may feel as I once did: that every new piece of hardware, and each new software program that I install, should work perfectly, from the moment I install it. And you'd be correct: they should work perfectly.

In an ideal world, it wouldn't matter how much hardware or software we load .. or how many different programs we launch concurrently. But unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. And you don't have to use a PC for very long to know that things don't always work the way they should. =/

Since you and I don't run a stripped-down, benchmarking rig, nor do we launch a single program at a time, it shouldn't surprise us when our systems experience quirky stability glitches after installing the very same component or software that a reviewer tested problem-free.

I've spent many hours on the phone with numerous tech support groups, whose only solution to my problem was to "uninstall the other guy's software". Which seems like no solution to me. I mean, my grandmother could have figured that out.

If you have only a basic system configuration, with a few, basic programs installed, for things such as email, word processing and surfing the 'Net, you're unlikely to be plagued by the quirky compatibility glitches I'm talking about.

But .. if you found your way to Radified, I suspect you're someone who tries to extract maximum utility (fun) from your PC, and who attempts more sophisticated endeavors .. such as video-editing,.. audio-recording,.. 3D animation .. and you've probably already discovered that that each new endeavor introduces its own set of problems...

...which brings us to the inspiration for this article. I've learned a few tricks along the way to building and configuring stable systems. I don't know everything. But I've made enough mistakes that I've learned what *doesn't* work well.

I've found that, if you eliminated the major sources of these problems, you have a better chance of running a stable system. It's much more difficult to build and configure a stable system than it is to built a fast one. So let's get busy and take a look at the major factors that affect PC stability.

Updated:
23.may.2006

P
A
G
E

O
N
E

O
F

T
H
R
E
E

1. The Operating System

The single biggest factor affecting system stability is the operating system. Both Windows XP and Windows 2000 are based on code from Windows NT. They are far more stable than 'legacy' versions of Windows (9X, Me) that includes 16-bit DOS-compatibility.

To make a long and complicated story short and simple, DOS is a 16-bit operating system. Windows is a 32-bit operating system, which contains backwards-compatibility with/for 16-bit DOS programs. This backwards-compatibility with 16-bit programs is the thing that adversely affects the stability of the consumer versions of Windows (Win9X, WinME).

Neither Windows 2000 nor Windows XP include backwards-compatibility with 16-bit programs. They are therefore is not affected by these associated stability problems.

If you absolutely must have/use one of these consumer versions of Windows that contain 16-bit backwards compatibility, because you still use 16-bit programs that are not supported by either Windows 2000 or Windows XP, then you should consider dual-booting two operating systems.

You can use one OS for all your 16-bit programs, and Windows 2000/XP for everything else. If you've never used Windows XP, you'll think you died and went to operating system heaven.

2. The Chipset

Volumes have been written on this subject, but suffice to say that Intel chipsets are the most stable. I do not know if this is because Intel does a better job at manufacturing their chipsets than other companies, or that software manufacturers test their software more thoroughly on Intel-based systems, since they are more popular .. more than they do on systems based upon non-Intel chipsets. Or a combination of these factors.

Either way, a system based on an Intel chipset will provide you with the most stable computing experience. This is common knowledge in the community. Everyone knows it. For example, Tom (love him or hate him) has this to say (3rd paragraph from the end):

Another factor is the stability and product quality of a system: while all Athlon processors suffered from occasional instability in our tests, the Pentium 4 platform ran without a glitch.

Reasons for this behavior might not lie in the processor itself, but rather in the motherboard design and the chipset used.

Chris at GamePC says (middle of first paragraph):

Our particular market, the high-end / gamer segment, seems fairly split, many loving the raw speed and low price of the Athlon, while others love the well-endowed memory bandwidth and ultra-stability of the Pentium 4 platform.

I can fill this page with comments like these, but I'll simply include one more for good measure and be done with it. Kyle at [H]ard|OCP echoes these sentiments when he says (next-to-last paragraph):

"Intel components are still the pinnacle when it comes to building a problem-free system that we can rely on."

I'm not saying that other chipsets suk. I'm merely saying that you have the greatest chance of configuring a rock-solid system if you use a motherboard based upon an Intel chipset.

While other companies such as Via have made *great* strides in recent years, and offer superb value, their chipsets do not compare with Intel's .. for sheer stability. If compatibility & stability are more important to you than cost, then make sure your motherboard contains an Intel chipset.

Far as motherboards go (chipsets come installed on motherboards), I prefer Asus boards. You will generally pay a little more for an Asus board, but this is money well spent. Asus is the largest manufacturer of mobos in the world.

They also have frequent BIOS updates. There is also a great site called ABXZone where you can get help for your Asus board. I have owned the (Asus) CUSL2 and the (Asus) P4T-E (P4-1.6A @2138MHz). Now I have the P5LD2.

Note that I never said that non-Asus boards are crap. They're not. There are many good motherboard manufacturers. I used to be a big Abit fan, beginning with the legendary BH6 (Cel300a@464MHz). I simply feel that Asus makes the most stable motherboards boards on the market. And more than a few folks agree.