Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Code at Fault for Half of all Windows Crashes
Flamester writes "In a ZDNet Australia story, Microsoft is claiming that half of all MS Windows crashes are the fault of third party code, not their own. That is, according to Dr. Watson.
The article also goes into the 'rigor in which MS tests their products before release'. "
So 50% of all system crashes are caused by 3rd party drivers and the other 50% are caused by Microsoft code.
Sounds bad, but compared to the number of application crashes, the number of actual OS crashes is infinitesimal.
Or really just One Ring to rule them all? An application in a protected-mode OS (running in Ring 3 of the x86 chip) can't touch kernel space (Ring 0). Now, if an OS vendor does things like put its GUI subsystem in Ring 3 (cough, NT, cough), and you let 3rd party people write drivers that 5uXX0r5, then yes, you can have a case where 3rd party code causes crashes. BUT YOU (MS) PUT THE GDI SUBSYSTEM IN USER SPACE!
If the OS design is so poor, or hacks and compromises are made for gaming performance at the expense of stability, then you can't really complain when the system goes unstable.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
What kind of third-party code are they talking about here?
Userland applications or device drivers?
As so many others undoubtedly already have remarked, an application, however shoddily written,
should not bring down the whole OS.
If they're talking device drivers.. well, that's a different issue entirely.
On the other hand, if this is the case, what the heck is that MS certification process for?
Also, it is likely that MORE than half of the applications run on a Windows box are non-microsoft applications, that would mean that statistically MS apps crash more often than third party apps.
Not that I really care to defend MS, but playing devil's advocate, MS apps would be more likely to crash than other apps because they're used more. Your average user of a Windows machine will use Outlook, IE, Word, Excel, and Powerpoint. What non-MS apps will the average user want to use? AOL/AIM, WinAmp, and Kazaa. There may be a few others, but none that will be used as often as the MS-created applications. If you never use the app, it can't crash the system.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
There is no advantage to either. Remember the filesystem-corrupting Linux kernel release? That was a pretty big blunder...
"Sufferin' succotash."
Not QNX! QNX drivers run in protected mode. Hell yeah, Microkernel biznatches!
<Amanda`> I just went out to the parking lot in my bathrobe to exchange warez CDs.
Here's another stupid quote from the article:
Consider this: Microsoft has been ordered not to use the term MSCE in both the United States and Canada because Microsoft does not have the legal right to "certify" people as engineers. This playing fast and loose with terms now extends to:- MCSE == an illegal appropriation of the term Engineer to fool the consumer and anyone stupid enough to pay for it
- Security == a fucking joke that isn't funny anymore
- Best practices == "we don't know how to fix it", as in "We're following best practices."
- Enhanced user experience == Fisher-Price interface
- Where do you want to go today == "Where the fuck did my data go!"
The problem wan't driver crases - their "Dr. Watson" wouldn't get a chance to report back to the mother ship in most of those instances.which is still sad, especially for an os whose zealous followers claim it is derived from VMS...
VMS had a major advantage in that almost every device attached to the system was also manufactured by DEC. With Windows there are a gazillion vendors of every component you can imagine.
There is no way commodity intel boxes are going to match the reliability of the DEC hardware built to run VMS. The build quality is just not the same - apart from the junk like the Multia that DEC built when it was on its way under.
One of my pet peves about reviews of the latest video hardware is that the quality of the drivers seems to receive only scant attention. I have video cards by nvidia and ATI, the performance of the two cards is indistinguishable but I have had far more hassle with the ATI drivers.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
That's just ignorant. Any device driver running on the system has complete control of the system. To architect an OS otherwise would take such a huge performance hit to make the OS unusable. Any device driver can blue screen a Windows machine. It's the nature of the beast. And it is in no way Microsoft's fault if a third party device driver does something that is clearly illegal according to the DDK. Read the other posts about the same thing being true of Linux kernel modules and PDP systems.
I hate to admit it, but my nvidia drivers have been wreaking havok on my Linux laptop. I'm doing better now since I know to never close the lid or allow the screen to blank when running on batteries. The frequent crashes when starting and stopping X have been eliminated by not using VESA-fb anymore. But for a while my Linux system was crashing (complete system lockup) more often than a mid-90's Macintosh!! I can't think of a worse insult than that.
I'm now testing out the more recent Nvidia drivers (4496) and it's good so far, but I haven't been using it for long and haven't tried anything "dangerous" yet. Earlier drivers (=2960) were MUCH more stable but I can't seem to revert back.
I know this doesn't refute your argument. The nvidia drivers are proprietary with an open source wrapper. And with Linux machines running 100% open source drivers, I've seen uptimes that rivaled VMS systems. Genuine Linux kernel crashes on a stable system are so rare I've only seen two or three in 8 years of working with Linux on dozens of computers.
But Linux is no better than Windows in that "3rd-party" (in this case proprietary) drivers are still allowed, are often necessary, and are most likely responsible for system crashes. Well, actually I see a Windows NT BSOD every couple of weeks, and if half of these are due to Windows code, then the Linux kernel is more stable by a couple orders of magnitude.
The article's headline (both on /. and ZDnet so no blame to /.) says "Windows Crashes", which implies that the OS actually crashes. However the quote in the article says "Crashes in Windows" which implies that some application running under Windows crashes, not necessarily the OS itself.
Which is it? I am confused. The latter isn't the fault of MS. But no application failing should be able to crash Windows, it's the OS's job to make sure it can handle failing programs.
TROY
I'm wondering why the news:
Microsoft is claiming that half of all MS Windows crashes are the fault of third party code, not their own.
turned up side down..
Microsoft Code at Fault for Half of all Windows Crashes
Actually I always send the info, because then IE pops up with current tracking information on the bug, and things like "this problem is fixed with x patch. would you like to download x patch now?" It's really a nice system, to tell you the truth.
Let's see... umm... A MS basher is someone who believes that half the bugs belong to MS. A MS apologist is someone who believes half the bugs belong to somebody else.
Of course if you want to avoid emotional implications when describing the glass, you say "it's 50% water and 50% air". Likewise for this, except...
If half the *code* in your system is written by somebody else, and they are responsable for half the bugs, then that tells you that you and the other guy are equally competent.
Of course, you can spin those statistics anyway you like to suit your needs. Some programs are historicly more difficult to write than others. You could evaluate binary bytes, LOC, or number of binary files to get the spin you want.
I'm willing to wager that MS and its partners are equally competent, since they draw on similar pools of talent. If there is any significant differential, things will tend to regress to the mean of proportional bugginess. For example, if a given vendor always writes buggy code they will eventually be replaced. If MS can't write something, they will eventually buy a company that can.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
There is no way commodity intel boxes are going to match the reliability of the DEC hardware built to run VMS.
Can't this same thing be said about MACs? Apple designs them, builds them, and codes the OS for that said machine.
Don't get me wrong, I'm trying to say that this is not only a good thing, but something that I have the feeling this exact thought is kicking around BillyG's and Monkey Boy's heads.
Prepare for a Win* exclusive machine to be released.
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
Depends on the vintage. During the Amelio era Apple had serious quality problems. When I was at the AI lab about 6 years ago the Apples in use would crash about twice a day but the way they were going down was completely unlike Windows which tend to crash when provoked - indicating a likely software cause. These machines would just freeze up at random.
Since Jobs has been on board Apple do seem to have a major commitment to build quality. The problems they have been having have tended to be caused by pushing the envelope too far rather than shoddy components.
I don't think that Microsoft will go into the same market as Dell. Building PCs is a very low margin business.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
- Post your ad
- Rat yourself out to the local board
- You WILL get your cease-and-desist letter
I did better. To prove this (that Microsoft was breaking the law) to an engineering friend of mine, I went a step further - threatened to start handing out certifications same as microsoft, by a specific date, unless they took action against M$.Surprise, surprise, got a visit, nut just a letter. Also got a copy of the actins they've taken against Microsoft, and the on-going negotiations re the use of the term "engineer".
They're ready to hand out fines of $600 to $6000 per day per incident, but most people change their ad real quick when they get a copy of the law along with the list of fines.
The funny thing is that in this case I agree with the governing bodies, and I'm usually not in agreement with "government-think".
If you don't want to sign an NDA, you can always take M$ to small-claims court for a refund. You have the law backing you up, and you could probably get the local engineering board on-side.
With the help of Intel and the "trusted computing initiative" only MS certified objects will be alowed to run on your computer. The fritz chip extentions are already in place for this in the p4 and up, so when you install Longhorn you will effectively surrender control of your computer to MS, the RIAA, Hollywood and the Government. But don't worry the trade off is you will not have to worry about worms and viruses anymore sucker! Unix systems are not attacked because to install an executable you need to be root, and any user that knows squat uses a decent pass word mine was dos_booty until just a few minuites from now when I will change it again.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No, imagine it more like this: the boat itself is not the kernel. None of the stuff that runs it is the kernel.
The kernel is, in fact,just a life vest. It's going to float no matter what.
Unfortunately, if you lose all of the parts of the boat, you're not going anywhere anyway...
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!