Gates Provides Windows Crash Statistic

cybercuzco writes "In an otherwise innocuous article at they NYT (FRRYYY) Bill Gates says that according to error reporting software in windows, 5% of all windows installations crash two or more times every day. Gates goes on to state that Microsoft is looking at charging for some of its software updates that it now distributes for free."

Comments

Cash for updates?

[Burlynerd]

Bill is becoming the world expert on increasing revenue without providing value to his customers.

Re:Cash for updates?

[Laur]

Bill is becoming the world expert on increasing revenue without providing value to his customers.

I'd have to say that SCO has him beat. At least Microsoft sells products, SCO posted a profit for the first time in years based solely on licensing 20+ year old technology!

Re:Cash for updates?

[Microsofts slave]

What Mr.Bill wants us to do is to pay for the updates that are technicly a result of his own screwups. HOw many of you out there think that this is a cash grab? If this backfires, it could end up with thousands of users migrating to somthing that is less costly to keep "Up to date" I personally am a big fan of FreeBSD, however i have tried out windows xp and found that for the most part it is sufficent for the average user. But if this happeness that i have to pay to uppgrade, i dont think there will be many who pay, just pirated copies that will circualate.

Re:Cash for updates?

[archen]

Well if so many people use windows there must be some value in windows - even if it is because "every application I use runs on windows" sort of reasons... which isn't much, but it's something.

I wonder if this isn't the second sly attempt by microsoft to move to a subscription model. Look at what RedHat does - Get the OS for free, then encourage people to pay for their services. Now Microsoft takes this a step farther. Get MS Windows [blah blah] Edition which is discounted but allows you to get updates with a [$integer] year subscription.

Re:Cash for updates?

[gl4ss]

ms has been doing this for YEARS, if you haven't noticed the main reason for 'upgrading' to more modern windows version is usually the fact that the older version is insecure or has some major flaws, and then after couple of years it's the same thing all again.

now, if he is serious about pulling this through (for smaller updates) people sould make complaints to the local organizations or officials depending on the country that look after consumer rights, it is not legal to sell a product that is defective (has major flaws) and then charge for fixing it. if your car's engine has a manufacturing flaw, it is the manufacturers(importers) responsibility to take care of it. there was some press some time back on game bugs, and how some games shipped with bugs that prevented you from playing them through(!), iirc the consumer advisor recommended refund of the games, at least, if the consumer wanted.

anyways, you already pretty much have to pay to somebody for keeping your windows machine up to date, because the updates take a nice amount of bandwith (you either have broadband and updates or you don't, luggaging servicepacks on cd's is not an option for most common people).

Re:Cash for updates?

[archen]

heh, I haven't messed with Visual Studio in 2 years, but I find that rather interesting. It's the exact opposit of what MS should be doing in my opinion - which is giving VS away for free. If MS wants to see how it's going to be losing mindshare to Linux, it's going to be at the developer level where a lot of people get to play around with Linux tools for free but MS charges way to much to even consider actually buying. And PAYING for an MSDN subscription? That should be free as well if they really want to encourage more development.

It's interested that MS is so blinded by dollar signes that they can't see that keeping people on windows is more important, and the easiest way to do that is to give everyone the chance to make stupid little apps that ONLY work on windows. Those people that start out developing on windows will probably stay on windows, and each app (big or small) that they create that people like, encourages users to stay on windows as well.

Re:Cash for updates?

[Megahurts]

I think the whole idea is that people who have pirated copies won't be able to patch the holes that are there in the initial release because they won't subscribe to the updates.

Re:Cash for updates?

[ryusen]

if only Microsoft could find a way to make you pay more than once for the same product

Two Words: Software Assurance.
They'll make you pay for the same product over and over again, for life.

Re:Cash for updates?

[Patrick13]

according to error reporting software in windows

Well considering that I think most people rarely send MS error reports - I would guess that 2 times per day is a low estimate of windows crashes.

Re:Cash for updates?

[dasmegabyte]

As a programmer, I am fucking appalled that you think bugs are "screw ups." I don't know if you realized this, but writing software is *HARD*. Harder than anything else in the physical world, mostly because there's no one right way to do things. I have, in a binder at work, 30 some odd distinct solutions for the relatively simple problem of how to make the database transparent both to customers and to programmers. Can you imagine if there were thirty different ways to lay bricks?

Because it is so hard, software bugs are nobody's "fault." They are not a "mistake" in the same way that recalled car parts are mistakes. The greatest coders in the world still have bugs in their code and the greatest tester will always miss a few of them. It is assumed, at least everywhere I've worked, that software is never "done," but that it is ready for release as soon as the rate of bug discovery reaches a certain cut off level, where finding and fixing the bugs costs more than the possibility of emergency fixes. To cover this cost, in addition to the up front fee for software, we also charge a yearly "support fee" which is something like a car warranty. If we write great code that doesn't break, wow free money for us. If the customer has a problem ever three days, we have to fix it even if we start to lose a little money. But the fact is that there is always a cut off. Nobody gets unlimited free updates forever. Because I am not willing to work for free.

(Neither, for that matter, are a lot of supporting developers of OSS. I've seen that a lot of the time, if your problem does not intersect with the problem of a developer's direct line of work or itnerest, it will not get solved. You'll have to pay to get it fixed -- and that's always more expensive than our cute little $500 per year "warranty.")

Tell me, how much did you spend on a support contract for Windows? I'm guessing nothing, unless you have an MSDN subscription or a copy of Advanced Server. They really have no obligation to fix the bugs that you find in it. They probably will, because it's in their best interest if they intend to sell more copies of the software. But when you get stubborn jerks like myself, who are still using windows 2000 4 years after its release, you have to recoup the development of upgrades and fixes somehow. You've already spend the money made from the sale of the software. Charging a few bucks for support off those of us who find our needs unmet by XP is good business.

And as much as you want to cry about monopolies, the fact is that before they could even GET to the level of unfair practices, they first had to be tested in the fires of being a profitable business. Microsoft, with its massive billions in the bank, has the idea of profit DOWN.

Re:Cash for updates?

[VertigoAce]

But those error reports often come from application crashes that don't take down the system. And most of the one's I've seen are from non-MS applications. It's kind of like how Konqueror or some other KDE app will crash and pop the segmentation fault box.

I don't by any means think Windows is reliable, I'm just saying that application errors are a strange way to guage OS stability.

Re:Cash for updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

" If only Microsoft could find a way to make you pay more than once for the same product - ahh - that's it - charge for updates. :) $-)"

They're taking lessons from Apple.

Re:Cash for updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to follow your so-called logic.

1. It's hard to write software.
2. Even the best programmers have bugs in their code.
3. There are multiple ways to do things.

Therefore mistakes in programming (bugs) are not "screw ups".

Did I get that right? Yes? Well I have a news flash for you, difficulty and other programmers having bugs in their code, and yes, even there being more than one way to do things, do not mean that bugs aren't screwups!

You can argue that screwups, er bugs, are understandable, but if you have a mistake in your code you've screwed up.

Touchy git.

Re:Cash for updates?

[rusty spoon]

The biggest cause of bugs, IMO, is complexity. We continually add more features to our software and this adds to the complexity. We quickly get to a point where the number of interactions of the inner workings far exceed our ability to visualise them...and then bugs creep in because we fail to realise some of the interactions.

Every keystroke can cause a bug and every line of code is a liability.

Whatever else can be said about it one thing is for sure; Bugs are mistakes, screwups, errors, ommisions, or general failures caused by one of the software developers/designers in the chain.

Failure to accept this is just admiting that it is OK to have bugs. And when you accept this you lose all hope of fixing the bugs.

(Bias note: I've written commercial/consumer software for a *long* time)

Re:Cash for updates?

[mkldev]

Can you imagine if there were thirty different ways to lay bricks?

1. You could do only one color of bricks with each row shifting by half.
2. You could do longer bricks and shift by a third the length.
3. You could put a brick of a different color in place of every third brick.
4. You could turn every other brick sideways so it would stick out the front.
5. You could tile the bricks alternating between two colors.
6. You might add a column of bricks, in which case you could have some of the bricks in a vertical orientation.
7. You might do a pattern of bricks on the ground consisting of two bricks sideway followed by two bricks turned 90 degrees.
8. You might use a short brick for every fourth brick, and you might lay every other row in opposite directions so that you would form a zig-zag pattern.

With all of these, you might use a light mortar or a dark mortar.

With all of these, you might choose to use a smooth brick or a rough brick.

That's 8 * 2 * 2 = 32 ways to lay bricks. Those are just the first few off the top of my head.

Just as there are infinitely many ways to write most non-trivial pieces of software---indeed, as with any art form---there are certain rules that must be met in order to get something that resembles usable output, but there are infinitely many ways to lay bricks. That having been said, no matter how complex the pattern, if you put the wrong brick in the wrong place, it's still a screw-up.

The only real difference is that screw-ups in software (i.e. bugs) are generally somewhat easier to fix. However, this in no way excuses the apathy that many programmers seem to feel about the existence of such mistakes.

Re:Cash for updates?

[Joey7F]

From what I hear, being a rocket scientist is ver tough and extremely complex, but our rovers smashing into Mars is a screwup. That does not mean that you are a slacker because there are bugs in your code or anything else. Bugs are digital oopsies.

--Joey

Re:Cash for updates?

[Tony-A]

I bet lots of houses fell down during the first 50 years of bricklaying too.
And lots of people looked over the rubble to get some idea of why the house fell down. Lots of people. Lots of debris. Sounds like the "With enough eyes all bugs are shallow" aphorism. Note this is not necessarily lots of eyes to fix the problem. You need lots of eyes so that someone looks just the right way and can actually see the problem. "My house fell down" is just as useless as "My computer crashed" to anyone actually trying to solve the problem.

Re:Cash for updates?

[Laser Lou]

You can argue that screwups, er bugs, are understandable, but if you have a mistake in your code you've screwed up.
Not all bugs are the result of a mistake in your code. The mistake could be in the requirements. The end user might call such mistakes "bugs" even if the code itself is fine.

Re:Cash for updates?

[xQx]

Yeah.... try a --help on any of the programs.
oh, didn't work? okay, man djbdns
nope, still no luck.
Well, there must be a logical documentation of all the features on the website... nope, just a bunch of howtos.

Great stable software... pity about the documentation, support and overall useability.

Oh that's right, it's the OSS way. "I'll build it, everybody else can work out how to use it and they can do all the shit work I don't want to"

Re:Cash for updates?

[1lus10n]

" But those error reports often come from application crashes that don't take down the system. And most of the one's I've seen are from non-MS applications. It's kind of like how Konqueror or some other KDE app will crash and pop the segmentation fault box."

well thats microsofts fault for allowing so many userland hooks into the damn kernel. i have been using Linux, *BSD, and even Solaris for years and at no point have i ever had an application crash a system. i once had an nvidia driver lockup (well X and the v-terms stopped working) a Linux system. but its a device driver,(shitty one at that) not an application.

Re:Cash for updates?

[falsified]

I don't like to be holier-than-thou with respect to computers, especially here because I know that I know less about computers than 95% of the people on Slashdot.

However, how many crashes on Windows-based machines can be blamed on poorly configured systems? I know that most people I know have about fifteen programs load in their system tray when they boot into Windows. When I ask (and I always do, because it amazes me) what the programs are, they say "I dunno".

People downloading a hundred screen savers and countless font packs can't help. Sure, Microsoft definitely has a responsibility to make a stable OS. I know I'm gonna get punched for saying this, but NT 5.0 (aka 2k/XP) is pretty stable. It's not Linux or BSD but it's fine. My computer hasn't has a crash that wasn't completely my fault in probably three months. My secret is knowing what every file on my computer is (except for dlls and such). I keep my computer pretty clean. Windows, Word, AIM, Yahoo, ICQ, Soulseek, mp3s, porn. That's my C: right there. That's all you need. My cursor doesn't turn into a spider but that's fine.

It seems to me that individual programs crash WAY more than Windows. I dunno how much of this, if any, is Microsoft's fault.

Re:Cash for updates?

[dasmegabyte]

Actually, I was in the top of my computer classes in school, and I know dozens of "methodologies" by heart. I've read as many "best practices" documents as I've had senior developers. This is not the issue. The issue is, that there are too many ways to perform a single, simple task. None of them is absolutely right or wrong. They each have their strong points. Problem is, a lot of times you are forced, through simplicity or generality's sake, to implement things in a way that is not best practice.

Take, for example, a list of names. Now, the easiest way to store them is in an array. Easiest, because every coder knows arrays back and front and if you know the exact position of an item, it's easily retreivable.

Now, what happens when you want to store them sorted? Suddenly, the array becomes less perfect, because if an item is out of order, the whole list needs to be reordered. No, a much better structure would be a linked list.

And what if you need the list to be resizable, for on demand insertions and deletions? A linked list is a good idea, but you have to traverse the full length of the list to find the position, which takes time. So ideally, you create a tree to perform searches.

You learn all this in your data structures class. Then, in your algorithms class, you learn the most efficient way to use each of them.

Then, you go to your first job, and the requirement is for ALL THREE. So you're faced with a dilemma: is it best to make an array that acts like a tree and perform sorting by a traversal, or is it best to make a tree with an index?

Multiply that by a hundred (or a thousand) and you have one function of a program. Compound it by having eight to ten guys who each have their own "knowledge holes" and their own preferences. I happen to love searching via hashtables. This other guy prefers in order traversals (start at 0, go until you find something). When there are less than, say, 32 items in the structure, his way is usually best. When there are more than that, mine should be best, which meant it was more scalable and for big applications that's what counts anyway...unless the hash is improperly generated, which it was for all his objects, because he was generating it for his method. My method benefited from extremely "random" keys and was getting explicitly ordered ones, and the result was a massive speed hit.

Both of us were using best practices. Put them together, it was a clusterfuck. The end result was refactoring, during which I had to redo everything and finally settled on a third option (sorting it all for speedy access during the database read we were doing anyway).

Re:Cash for updates?

[dasmegabyte]

If your car has a 5 year bumper to bumper warranty, then you DID pay extra for it. It may have been included in the price of your car, but you paid for it. When I bought my car, the guy offered to knock off $1000 if I didn't take the warranty (which, in retrospect, i should have done, as I never used it).

Consumer software companies don't offer warranties by year right now, because who knows how long a company like, say, Ahead, might produce the same product. Chances are, they'll eventually add so many new features that they'll feel it's not fair to them to for them to give you the upgrade for free. That would be like you paying for a Honda, then getting an Acura for free if it broke under warranty.

Industrial software generally DOES have a warranty on it. Every package my company sells comes with one. Some online service providers (ASPs and the like) roll that into a fee along with bandwidth and hosting...which makes it a bit more transparent. Still others expect you to buy both upgrades and service charges, to pay for the different aspects of their industry: new development (innovations and creations), and support (diagnostics and repairs).

Re:Cash for updates?

[InadequateCamel]

Furthermore, if your system crashes outright you rarely get the opportunity to send an error report...in fact, the only one I could remember was kernel32.dll in Win98, which would crash if I opened WinAmp and two folder windows, taxed the system, or breathed. So I suspect that this number is WAY higher.

Re:Cash for updates?

[yennieb]

You're joking, right? I'm a programmer. I have the hardest job in the world. Bugs aren't my fault because programming is hard.

Making cars is hard too.
Building rocket ships is hard.

Yes, it is acceptable to have *some* bugs in released code. But programming doesn't get a special exemption over all other trades on earth. If you write code and it's unuseable due to a bug, it's just as defective as a bad seat belt.

It's simply a matter of severity: NO, you won't be chastized as a programmer if you write a bug that accidentally renders a button wrong. If you write a bug and it double charges people's credit cards, you are in trouble.

The problem with Windows is that it is unnacceptably buggy. Unfortunately, the average consumer doesn't know the difference.

Microsoft has gone on record in the past that they release early and often, and fix bugs later.

How would you feel if your car manufacturer did the same thing?

'Well, it's REALLY hard to make anti-lock brakes, and mechanics need to make a living...'

Microsoft software isn't buggy because it's hard to be a programmer. They have more money and more resources than everyone else, and yet their software is still inferior and more bug-ridden.

They CHOOSE to be that way because they can get away with it and it makes them lots of money.

Fact is, Microsoft doesn't know if it CAN compete based on the quality of their product. Shafting the customer is working very well for them.

Re:Cash for updates?

[arsenick]

I'm sorry, but it's probably because there are too many so-called 'programmers' like you that commercial software is so crappy in general.

What is this "...but there are 30 odd solutions to..." thing? I am sure there ARE 30 "odd ways" to lay bricks. I don't see how that justifies anything at all.

Also, complexity is no excuse for bugs. If things are abstracted correctly, there's no reason to get confused.

It is entirely possible to write very complex and completely correct software. And testing is not the key: tests can only show that things DON'T work. Ever heard of formal verification (possibly computer-assisted)? Note that I am not saying that it is a trivial task, but one should only release software of a complexity they are able to handle.

The problem with computer science is that people forget that it is fundamentally a mathematical science and the field has been infested by way too many people who start writing programs and suddenly think they know what they are doing.

What's wrong with using an OS 4 years after its release? I don't see why people think that everything that has to do with computers MUST ABSOLUTELY BE REPLACED EVERY 3 MONTHS. How about concentrating on making things correct instead of insisting on continually adding new 'features' to huge flawed code bases?

It's really sad that such an interesting (computer) science is completely misunderstood and misrepresented in the corporate world.

Re:Cash for updates?

[Mr. Piddle]

However, how many crashes on Windows-based machines can be blamed on poorly configured systems? I know that most people I know have about fifteen programs load in their system tray when they boot into Windows.

I beat the crap out of Solaris daily, using up 90%+ of virtual memory occasionally and launching several large programs simultaneously, and it doesn't crash. The only time I have seen Solaris crash (twice in years) was due to having a wrong device driver installed (our fault and easily fixed, BTW).

I dunno how much of this, if any, is Microsoft's fault.

Anytime an application crashes Windows is Microsoft's fault. Anytime Windows crashes on its own is Microsoft's fault, too.

Microsoft should be liable for their negligence over the last decade or more. They should also be tried for psychological damage, as the "break-reboot" cycle is a part of our culture, now.

Re:Cash for updates?

[cduffy]

It's Microsoft's fault for making a system where *having* too many screen savers or font packs or useless little running applications can impact the stability. Good operating system design implies a separation between application and system-level processes, and between the applications themselves; having applications that can take down the system implies that this separation isn't well enforced.

Likewise, having too many apps that load VxDs or other code that runs with OS-level privileges implies that the OS isn't well-enough designed to let the necessary functions be done with code having only regular user priveleges.

Re:Cash for updates?

[dasmegabyte]

Software doesn't have lemon laws because consumer software is only $50-$200. It would take a class action suit for the return to equal the expense of pursuit, and people already due this. Therefore, no law is necessary. Cars have lemon laws because they're expensive and often sold in high pressure situations by shady people. Shady practices often pay off bigtime in the auto industry.

Automotive recalls are to prevent people from DYING due to stupid little problems. They recalled the liner around my wheels, because in intense breaking situations the sparks from the asbestos free breaks were melting the special lightweight impact resistant platic and causing fires.

No program I have ever written has melted plastic or caused a fire or killed a person. If my dumb bugs were capable of this, then we'd have to send out a free update. My company does this, I'm sure MS would too...it's just good PR.

Yes, smart software companies SHOULD start offering warranties as part of the purchase price. But they don't, yet, and they are not obliged to by law. If MS starts charging for updates to its products after they've been out for, say, 3 years, it may be worthwhile for those of us unwilling to move to a completely new operating system, and may greatly reduce the "upgrade-as-new product" marketting that MS currently undertakes. I definitely wouldn't consider that a bad thing. But then again, I don't feel people owe me free stuff.

WOW.

[michrech]

5% may sound like a small amount, but considering HOW MANY Windows boxes exist on EARTH, that is a HUGE number...

So?

[Dthoma]

There's no way to be sure that it's necessarily Windows that causes the crash; it could be some badly installed rogue software, viruses, crappy system administration, or all of the above. Though no doubt the reflexive Microsoft bashers will blame Microsoft anyway.

Re:So?

[Dr. Zowie]

It doesn't matter what "causes" the crash. The OS should be essentially crashproof. That's what an OS was for, and it was why Apple got such a drubbing before OS X finally came out (twelve years later).

Re:So?

[KrispyKringle]

And of course there are plenty of people who choose not to send the crash report to MS, or, even more likely, do not (*gasp*) have always-on-connections and cannot send the report to MS. The vast majority, for all we know, go unreported. This is, after all, hardly an accurate means of statistical sampling.

Charging For Updates

[webguru4god]

Microsoft charging for Windows Updates is analogous to Ford charging their customers extra for basic safety features which should be free in the first place! What if Ford told you that there was a fatal flaw in your seatbelt system that could allow you to be thrown from the car in a crash, and that the problem was a result of poor engineering on their behalf, and that you had to pay out of your own pocket to fix it! If that happened the government would surely intervene and force Ford to provide the fix for free. I can't belive that Microsoft has the gall to even consider charging us to fix the holes in their systems that are there because of their own fault!

Re:Charging For Updates

[Pieroxy]

Probably not. See the article mention MS charging for "some" of the updates. I bet the security fixes would be free.

I can't belive that Microsoft has the gall to even consider charging us to fix the holes in their systems

That's good you can't believe it, because nobody said it.

Re:Charging For Updates

[MadCow42]

>> I bet the security fixes would be free.

That'd be a great thing... you could get security features without them trying to ram "upgrades" like DRM down your throat then!

A lot of MS's current patches come along with unwanted tag-alongs like that... I'd welcome the change.

MadCow.

Re:Charging For Updates

[Audity]

It doesn't surprise me at all, think of it from their point of view. System administrators tend to get fired for not installing updates; especially with all the recent viruses runing around wreaking havoc on the world's unpatched servers. This means that system administrators (who want to keep their jobs) will convince their employers to fork over the money to buy the updates. So since microsoft is likely to experience a fairly small drop in patch downloads compared to the increase in price, it will increase their total revenue. And we all know that microsoft is all about increasing total revenue.

Re:Charging For Updates

[WindBourne]

Actually, the automotive industry normally does charge extra for safety features when they first come out. Only later does it become standard. Good example was back in the 60's, my father baught a chevy with seat belts. He paid extra for those. Interestingly, my grandmother was opposed to these as it showed my father as being an unsafe driver for having them (no safe driver would need them). The real difference here, is that the competitive automotive industry provides safety as an option until overwhelming demand requires it, while a company who becomes a monopoly can then charge extra for what is obviously a needed item. It would be something like "hey Ford Exploror owners, we modified the wheel system so you must now buy tires from us; don't like the ones we sold you? it will be another 1000/tire" if they were identical.

Re:Charging For Updates

[Grishnakh]

I can't belive that Microsoft has the gall to even consider charging us to fix the holes in their systems that are there because of their own fault!

Why not? I can believe it. And maybe if all the other stupid MS customers out there would get it through their thick skulls that sitting around galled and shocked at this brazen display of customer-unfriendly monopolistic power is not going to make MS change magically into a company that values its customers, and stop buying their products and go to their competitors instead, then we wouldn't constantly be reading here about all the problems with MS products.

Re:Charging For Updates

[MadCow42]

Any "upgrade" that takes away functionality, or adds restrictions to functionality should be optional by law. Forcing me to add DRM while fixing a security hole is like sodomizing me while re-keying my front door lock.

My $0.02 (Cdn).

MadCow.

Cool...

[Jaysyn]

Nothing to push the masses to Linux/Mac like charging for updates & bugfixes.

Jaysyn

Re:skewed statistics.

[ejdmoo]

Maybe it's possible that they didn't count those? The error report is more than just a ping, it actually contains information on what crashed and sometimes even sends a memory dump.

5% seems a bit low...

[kgarcia]

that according to error reporting software in windows

yeah, but how many people actually use the "report this error to microsoft" feature?. I know everytime I get a crash, I opt to not send the report, and I know i'm not the only one that does this. Also, the only time this method for reporting error is used at all is when customers are on broadband connections, or in office networks (can you imagine wating for your modem to dial to report an error or a crash?), and what about those times when the crash is so bad your entire system needs to be restarted?. From what I can tell, this error reporting software only sends error reports regarding programs that crash, not the OS itself. So... 5% of windows users, who are on persistent connections, who use the error reporting software, who had a crash on an application that doesn't freeze the entire system, are crashing at least 2 times a day... The real number has to be much higher that that.

-K

-K

I'm gonna code myself up a minivan!

[Sagarian]

Shades of Dilbert

Now another question to ask is

[falcon5768]

Damnit I was beat submitting this story :-P

But on to my topic,

Now how many people crash ONCE a day??? It seems odd that he would pick just twice a day to report, what would have looked more impressive would have been Bill saying "Only 5% of our users crash once or more using all of our operating systems."

I know as all you do it would have been a much more staggering figure since just about any Windows PC I see at work crashes once a day, so I can see why he didnt say it.

Glad my linux and OSX boxes crash on an average of once every 6 or 7 months or so.

Re:skewed statistics.

[homer_ca]

I think the Windows error reporting service can only handle application errors and non-fatal system errors. If there was a BSOD or a hard freeze, the service wouldn't be running any more to report the crash, although theoretically it's possible for the service to check for a BSOD crash dump file and send a report after rebooting.

As far as the 5% have apps that crashed twice or more a day. That's not hard to imagine:

"'random shareware app' has generated errors."
WTF? Run it again.
"'random shareware app' has generated errors."
There you go. 2 crashes.

Old versions of Yahoo Messenger crashed like that all the time, and Mozilla 1.4 still crashes like that, usually when I'm closing the app. And I turned off error reporting for privacy purposes.

Charging to Fix Their Own Defective Product?

[MonkeyCookie]

So I pay for a copy of Windows and soon I might have to pay Microsoft to fix the bugs that shouldn't have been there in the first place?

I've been considering switching to Linux for a while now and having to pay more money to Microsoft for fixes would cause me to switch for sure. I'm not going to put up with crap like that!

REPORTED incidents

[Mu*puppy]

Then there's the rest of us, company networks who have things nicely fire-walled, techies who configure their friend's computers to never contact M$ with 'quality assurance crash reports', installations for people who don't have 'net access (they -do- exist), etc...

Bounty for Every Bug

[Lead Butthead]

I think Dilbert had one (rumored to be based on a true story) where the company decided to offer a bounty for every bug fixed. As usual, Wally decided to "write himself a minivan." I can already see bugs been inserted proactively by employees to boost their stock option value...

Re:skewed statistics.

[Cali Thalen]

You're also assuming that the people who get the crashes actually SEND the error report...I crash multiple times daily, and have stopped bothering to send the reports at all (mostly because it's the same app that usually crashes...Internet Explorer)

5% is good enough...

[ackthpt]

A 5% rate of errors is good enough when:

You are driving. Unless the cop has it in for people who drive a car like yours, hasn't made his quota, or is having a generally rotten day and feels like sharing.

Choosing resistors for your home electronics projects, unless perhaps you are aiming for orbit, then you better get the spendy 1% or better kind.

Temerature for frying your pancakes on the stove. Actually, that's a pretty superior stove, as most vary wildly on what the subjective settings: LOW, MED, HIGH mean. At least ovens have degrees, but also seem to have their own opinions of 400 degrees.

Fan speed, processor temperature, etc. unless you're already at the limit and a 5% spike in voltage or temperature means you stop reading this text and start fishing out the backup hardware.

It's your annual cost of living increase. Beats 2% or none at all.

Your opponent just went into the red while you kept alive.

5% is not good enough when...

You understated your income tax three years ago and get smacked down for it.

They're mixing chemo drugs to pump into your veins for the next three months. You want it all exact and guarantees, alas, there are none...

The wing is good for 205% and the foam exerts 206% force.

You spend thousands of dollars on equipment, software and salaries and watch it all general 0 revenue while workers wait for a reboot, or spend hours or days recovering from lost or corrupt data.

Reality check

[xant]

ok, 5% crash 2 or more times per day.
Let's say then, that maybe 10% crash once per day, 20% crash every couple of days, 40% crash once a week, etc. If we only go that far that's saying

75% of windows computers crash at least once a week.

If once a week doesn't sound like a lot to you, imagine how annoyed you'd be if your ISP was down once a week, because that's what we're talking about. ... and here's some for-pay updates to fix that problem, you drooling idiot customer. WINDOWS IS YOUR GOD. WORSHIP IT.

Re:skewed statistics.

[David Hume]

The 5% number is just skewed heavily by the fact that any poorly written app that crashes is counted. Whenever an app crashes the windows error reporting system fires off a log to microsoft regarding the crash. I bet 90%+ of these crashes have nothing to do with windows.

A couple of observations.

First, just because an application crashes under Windows does not necessarily mean that it is the fault of the application, or that there is an error in the application's code. A bug in windows could cause the application to crash. (Does anyone remember the days of "Windows isn't done until [fill in the blank] won't run?") If I fall because the foundation under me crumbles, is it my fault? Does it imply that there is something wrong with my legs, or my sense of balance? Or is it because maybe something was wrong with the foundation?

Secondly, I suspect that the 5% number is low. As I recall, when an application crashes, the windows error reporting system puts up a "Yes / No" dialog box asking permission to fire off an error report to Microsoft. I know many people who routinely click "No" because they don't want to be bothered and/or don't want to send any information to MS about their box. I suspect that many more people see that dialog box than click "Yes." Thus, crashes are under-reported.

Re:skewed ? I don't think so

[vanadium4761]

I think the reporter intentionaly mislead readers. Notice the article has like 2 sentances even mentioning the crash statistics. Paul Thurott covered the same speech and he had _NO_ mention of these statistics and he is usually very critical of Microsoft. I would be very interested to see a transcript of the original speeach to see exactly what Gates said to get this in context.

Re:skewed statistics.

[Flossymike]

Regarding those crashes there are two thoughts which come to mind straight awy:-

1) Individual application crahes shouldn't bring the whole OS down

2) Most people don't report these crashes

Re:FUCK YOU ASSHOLE! YOU'RE NOT FUNNY!

[Anonymous Coward]

The only good part of this post is the use of the word "asshat."

Re:skewed statistics.

[edashofy]

The debate here is whether the NYTimes is reporting the statistics right. We all know that the Windows Error Reporting service generally jumps up at us whenever we have an application crash, which is the fault of the application. Having not seen a real, bona-fide BSOD on my own Windows machines in years (literally), I don't know whether the crash reporting service reports them to MS or not.

Whether the NYTimes reporter can tell the difference between an application crash and an OS crash is up for debate (I'd say there are 50/50 odds either way).

That number is also a huge aggregate of apples and oranges. It doesn't make a distinction between 9X kernels and NT kernels, which I would bet have wildly different numbers of OS crashes (just about anything can blow up a 9X kernel, NT kernel BSODs are generally caused by faulty device drivers, hardware faults, and OS bugs).

The real problem WRT crashing on NT kernel machines is the device drivers running in kernel space. This means that a non-OS part of the system can zap the OS part of the system. Thus, even if you do convert everybody to an NT kernel-based OS, you're probably going to continue to have trouble with people that run terribly bad hardware with equally terrible device drivers. Unfortunately, most people don't understand that buying that white box ethernet card from Fry's or that roundy-looking-box-with-crappy-monitor consumer PC from Best Buy really *can* hurt you in the morning.

When and if MS rearchitects the Windows kernel so device drivers run in user space, or some protected space, I think that the so-called reliability gap between UNIX/UNIX workalikes and Windows will be very, very small indeed.

No kidding..

[msimm]

Not to mention that 2 or more (what 10? 90?) times a day is really a lot and is probably an indication of a really serious problem. 2 to 3 crashes a week is probably my Windows norm and enough to make me want to huge my Linux box when I finally get home.

Massaging the data.

[matastas]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Thank you, Mr. Twain.

Wonder what the DoJ will think of his plans to make users pay for his bugs. Any other SW company that blatant about it would get slapped.

In the meantime, spin that bitch like a top, Billy-boy. We all know that you're the epicenter of all that's evil in the world; charging for flaws in your software is just icing on the cake.

That Powerbook looks awfully tasty right now. If only they'd drop the damned price.

Re:that's sad.

[Keebler71]

Mod me down for -not- posting an anti-MS post but my main computer has been running Windows XP for almost a year and a half and it still has not crashed once. Sure, apps crash every once in a while, but they never bring down the OS (at least in my case). However, nearly every time I kill a process via the task manager, an error is reported back to MS. I wonder if these are counted and artificially raising the count?

MOD FUD DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see,

I don't believe it's fair to blame Microsoft if they chose to charge customers for certain updates

I'd say you are a sympathizer, and in the minority. Most people are going to be outraged that a company that dominates the market with a substandard product and charges significantly more for it than they should considering they have nearly 60 billion dollars in their war chest should in the VERY least fix their broken crap and take responsibility for their failures instead of blaming other people.

Red Hat are celebrated as hero's of open sores

Can this troll be more obvious? "open sores" is what the microsoft zealots call open source. It's not like that's an accidental typo.

Debian zealots will say that apt-get is the solution, but it does not offer signed packages

As already pointed out by a CLUEFUL poster, this is a complete fabricated lie. Debian DOES have MD5 and has for quite some time. What the hell does this even have to do with Microsoft charging for updates to their substandard OS in the first place? Debian actually WORKS most of the time. Do the right things Moderators. Even if most of you do run windows, do the right thing.

waitaminute

[Wordsmith]

wait just a gul darn minute ...

I was under the impression the error reporting tool didn't send any personally identifiable info back to MS. How, exactly, is he figuring out the frequency with which individual machines crash?

Negative on that, Houston...

[Kjella]

From what I can tell, this error reporting software only sends error reports regarding programs that crash, not the OS itself.

No. Twice, Windows has done a hard, cold BSOD and at the next boot, come up with a msg saying something like "Uh oh. Call home?" in slightly different words. Btw, in both cases the error was reported to be in a driver (yep, I read the details).

Kjella

Re:Win2K

[Laur]

Nuff said.

Yes, with a statistical sample of 1 we can draw all sorts of conclusions. That being said I too find Windows 2000 to be very stable. I still greatly perfer Linux, but you must admit that Microsoft products are getting better.

Are you on crack?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would ad 200 dollars a month to the cost of "trying" to run a secure MS machine. They've totally warped your mind. You've become entirely too complacent. That and a newcomer to MS has NO IDEA what they are getting into. If they did, open source would never have gotten as big as it is now, and wouldn't be continueing to spread and grow. A lot of people are sick of "doing business the MS way".

Re:App Crash (usually) = Windows Crash (sorta)

[Grishnakh]

I don't care what kind of application you're using, the job of the OS is to protect the hardware from access by individual programs, and to protect programs from each other. No app should EVER be able to crash an OS, game or not.

Device drivers are another matter, but still one within MS's control in a way; MS is the one that created the culture of every device having its own drivers, instead of the linux way where drivers are included in the kernel distribution and are written for devices generically. For instance, if you download the newest kernel, there's a driver in there for the RTL3019 NIC chipset. So all cards based on this chipset (which is a lot; it's a common low-cost chipset for NICs) use the same driver, unlike the Windows world where all those cards are about the same from a hardware POV, but the drivers are all different, and some may be better than others. Also, in Linux, the drivers are open-source just like the rest of the kernel, so people are able to file bug reports against them, debug them themselves, etc., unlike the Windows world where each driver is a little black box from the manufacturer, and may not even be supported anymore (common when the manuf. goes out of business). Admittedly, MS has finally, after all these years, started to recognize this problem, and is now trying this "signed" driver scheme to improve their situation.

Cutting off their own nose...

[fmaxwell]

If we're talking about a new version of media player (presuming the new version isn't a security patch... ahem), them there's no reason that it need be free.

Microsoft has traditionally used the Windows Update service to push out new products from which they hope to make money. The new version of Media Player you mention may have some kind of DRM that they want to convince commercial vendors to use. If Microsoft charges for it, then it will have a lower adoption rate. Lower adoption means that commercial vendors will be less willing to use it. If they are less willing to use it, then Microsoft doesn't sell them some kind of expensive 'media server' for distributing content. The vendor goes to a Microsoft competitor and maybe even foregoes Microsoft products altogether.

Microsoft has a vested interest in seeing that people update their products and adopt new technologies being pushed by the software giant. Anything to discourage that is a mistake IMNSHO.

Re:Halting problem...????

[SeanAhern]

But it is theoretically impossible to for an observer (i.e., the OS) to determine whether another program (i.e., the app) will shut down properly. In computer science, this is known as the halting problem, and it can be mathematically proven.

Yes, that's the halting problem.

But that has nothing to do with OS stability. The OS does not have to determine if the program will end, or even shutdown properly. Since the OS is the arbiter of resources, it can make the decision to disallow a program from executing any further, without consulting the program beforehand. It is also the protector of programs, keeping one from trouncing another. All of these types of controls, implemented correctly, should prevent any application, no matter how badly behaved, from causing the OS to fail.

The halting problem is something else entirely.

Re:App Crash (usually) = Windows Crash (sorta)

[Osty]

Device drivers are another matter, but still one within MS's control in a way; MS is the one that created the culture of every device having its own drivers, instead of the linux way where drivers are included in the kernel distribution and are written for devices generically. For instance, if you download the newest kernel, there's a driver in there for the RTL3019 NIC chipset. So all cards based on this chipset (which is a lot; it's a common low-cost chipset for NICs) use the same driver, unlike the Windows world where all those cards are about the same from a hardware POV, but the drivers are all different, and some may be better than others.

Where do you draw the line? With a thriving hardware economy, you can't expect the OS developers to write all of the drivers for every different piece of hardware out there. As well, if you only write generic drivers then you rob the hardware manufacturers of the capabilty to customize their hardware offerings even if they are based on a common platform. Finally, if drivers have to be written by the OS developers, then new hardware is much less attractive. Hardware developers would have to jump through hoops, either getting the OS developers to write drivers or adding some sort of compatibility mode to their hardware, because otherwise you couldn't use the hardware. And that's saying nothing of making drivers open source, since drivers often contain intellectual property. I don't care what you think about open source, but wrong or right, most companies that own some sort of IP are generally not willing to give that away to everybody. If you want your platform to be seen as desirable to hardware developers, you need to keep that in mind.

Microsoft tries to work within these constraints in several ways. Most generic hardware items have generic drivers available from Microsoft. As well, Microsoft tries to build confidence by certifying drivers, as you mentioned. However, since certification takes a while, you'll notice that companies like nVidia, which try to rev their drivers every six months or so, generally have an older version that's Microsoft-certified. You won't be using that version, because it doesn't have the latest and greatest enhancements and fixes.

There's surely a better way to balance between "completely open and generic (and thus unattractive to hardware developers)" and "completely closed black box drivers", but I don't know what it is. In the meantime, gamers will generally accept less stability for more performance in their games, and thus games should be judged separately from other apps in terms of stability.

Easily Bypassing NYT 'Registration Required'

[FsG]

1. Click on URL, you're redirected to registration/login page
2. Go to URL bar, replace "www" with "archive" in the URL, leaving the rest alone, and hit ENTER
3. The system will bounce you around a few erroneous URLs, before returning you to the homepage
4. All NYT links will now work without registration, thanks to a special cookie set by the bouncing process

Whos fault?

[rossz]

I see several comments that say an application crashing can't be blamed on Microsoft. I disagree. When there are fundamental flaws in the OS that guarantee crashes, Microsoft damn well deserves the blame. I've seen it. A memory leakage problem in Win NT 4 guaranteed that programs that did certain types of operations would crash eventually. There was no way to work around it.

Not all application crashes can be blamed on the OS, but the number is probably significant.

Not quite correct.

[Population]

The problems with Windows are as follows:

#1. The core OS was not sufficiently protected from being "upgraded" by any application that was installed. Microsoft was the biggest offender with Office.

#2. The binary registry has all of the information for everything, users, applications, hardware, security, etc stored in it. If something goes wrong it is a major pain to fix it.

#3. The uninstall feature of Windows does not clear out everything. If I do install a buggy driver for a scanner and I want to remove it so it doesn't affect my system anymore, uninstalling does NOT always clean it out.

That is why, over time, Windows installations become less stable. Crap gets stuck in the registry and drivers get stuck in the OS directories and bad things start happening.

And don't give me any crap about that being the fault of the user. The OS should be able to control itself. Look at Debian's uninstall feature. Debian even has multiple levels of uninstall.

The problems with Windows are because of decisions Microsoft made. Not because of end-users.

Because it's hard they're not mistakes?

[whjwhj]

Hey I've been programming for 20 years and you're quite correct -- programming is hard. But I must disagree with your assertion that just because it's hard means that bugs aren't mistakes. They ARE mistakes. And yes, it's generally somebody's fault when they occur. Level of difficulty doesn't let you off the hook here ... sorry.

Microsoft business model

[Latent Heat]

There are methods for controlling bugs, but they aren't cheap. Think Space Shuttle flight control software. In terms of number of lines (100,000? in the core modules?) it is not a very big program, but they have spend big bucks studying it and being very conservative about making changes. Oh, and there are only 4 "sites" where it is in operation. The Microsoft model is that they probably spend less labor on their flagship products than the Shuttle or say the aerospace industry on flight control systems and autopilots. But they sell it to many more people for a much much lower unit cost and rake in the bucks in a way that Rockwell Collins or Sunstrand can only dream. Their big breakthrough business discovery is that they can sell (relatively) cheaply developed software for the desktop, and people are not going to care in a way that counts.

Device Driver Ignorance: check your facts first!

[kylef]

For instance, if you download the newest kernel, there's a driver in there for the RTL3019 NIC chipset.

This is true only if you elect to compile the kernel module corresponding to this driver into your kernel. The source for the driver is distributed with the kernel, but it is up to you to elect its inclusion. This mechanism is no better than Windows, because some drivers just aren't included with the kernel sources, just as some drivers aren't shipped in-box with Windows. So you're still stuck with fetching your own driver direct from the vendor of your hardware.

Stock distro kernels typically include tons of drivers in their kernels just in case you happen to have a device needing that driver; in most cases, the driver tries to load and fails to initialize, and unloads itself from memory. In my opinion, this is a somewhat clumsy mechanism, but it works. At install, Windows determines what PnP devices are on your system and installs only the drivers for which a PnP ID has been discovered.

So all cards based on this chipset (which is a lot; it's a common low-cost chipset for NICs) use the same driver, unlike the Windows world where all those cards are about the same from a hardware POV, but the drivers are all different, and some may be better than others.

This is just completely wrong. Windows ships with in-box "class drivers" based on generic chipset specifications just as any other operating system does. In fact, Windows ships with a class driver for the Realtek 8139x chipset that works with just about any such card on the market (D-link 530TX comes to mind). The reason you might want a IHV-specific driver for your particular card is that some IHV's enable extra functionality that the class drivers do not support (wake-on-lan, encryption coprocessors, etc). Class drivers are a good way to get support out for devices quickly, but they are much worse at supporting specific features in individual cards.

Also, in Linux, the drivers are open-source just like the rest of the kernel, so people are able to file bug reports against them, debug them themselves, etc...

Again, only the ones included with the kernel are guaranteed to be open source. NVidia's display drivers are most certainly not open source. And you can't assume that all Windows drivers are closed-source, either: Realtek (makers of the RTLxxxx chipsets you alluded to earlier) typically releases source code so that IHVs that implement NICs using their chipset can easily adapt some working code to their drivers.

Admittedly, MS has finally, after all these years, started to recognize this problem, and is now trying this "signed" driver scheme to improve their situation.

Driver signing has nothing to do with making drivers open source, or eliminating problems with vendors going out of business, so I fail to see the connection there. WHQL (Windows Hardware Quality Labs) testing and signing is a method by which Microsoft can provide some basic level of quality assurance on device drivers that they do not directly produce. Poorly written kernel-mode device drivers are still the #1 cause of Windows crashes (according to some press release that I can't find at the moment), and Microsoft is attempting to address this by helping improve driver quality through WHQL and eliminating the need for future kernel-mode drivers (replacing them with user-mode drivers whenever possible, I'm sure).

Regardless, you will find no such centralized basic quality control mechanism for Linux drivers. If you sincerely believe that Linux device drivers are of higher overall quality than their Windows equivalents, I have some land to sell you right next to an oasis in Baja. (And before you flame me, I completely understand that Linux drivers often must be reverse-engineered, and that is a difficult process. But while I sympathize with Linux driver writers, this difficulty still doesn't support the claim that the resulting Linux driver model is superior to its Windows counterpart.)

Error reporting?

[__aafkqj3628]

Did Gates ever concider that the other 95% of that statistic don't send in the error reports beacuse they know that other information it sends.

OT EUbashing

[TheTimoo]

I would bet you anything that you'd find similar BS in the US, Australia and Canada.

Re:Doesn't really matter to average joe

[nagora]

can't tell you how many desktops I see with the "New Updates Available" icon in the systray.

Yep, and since MS has a habbit of releasing new versions of their EULA with the updates, not to mention a certian lack of testing the updates, that's where I leave them when I see them. Instead, I remove Outlook, remove all the IE icons from the desktop and install Opera or Mozilla (depending on the user), and put all the Windows machines behind a decent firewall.

That tends to sort out the security issues; I've had Windows machines used by total non-IT-literate people for three to four years at a time under this sort of setup with NO anti-virus programs and also no viruses. IE and Outlook are the only vector used by most viruses today and open ports cover the rest. The days when they were carried by floppies is long gone and most places have a strict "No external discs" rule anyway.

TWW

Looks reasonable to me

[DrSkwid]

When one buys Champagne one expects it come from Champagne.

However, when one buys a Swiss Roll one expects a particular style of cake not for it to come from Switzerland.

I think the Commission has every right to protect the names of certain goods.

When one buys a Linux distribution one would expect it to come with a Linux kernel. Imagine if it came with a "Linux compatible" kernel. That's why Linux is a trademark.

Champagne can only be champagne if it is made with grapes grown in Champagne. I'm quite happy to buy Champagne Compatible so long as I'm pre-warned.

licence licence licence

[DrSkwid]

If I buy a car I own a car.

If I bought a car from Microsoft I would be buying the legal right to drive that car.

A subtle difference.

But the only defect I can argue about in the latter would be in the licence agreement.

An amazing set of hoodwinks.