Big Challenges for Vista Bug Hunters

special software by macadamia_harold · 2006-10-08 23:13 · Score: 5, Funny

This is where special software automatically exercises programs rapidly while looking for errors.

and this software, folks, goes by the name "internet explorer".

--
Push Button, Receive Bacon

Re:special software by Aladrin · 2006-10-08 23:16 · Score: 1

No, that 'program' is called Internet Explorer maybe, but that 'special software' is an automatic testing application, probably developed internally and woefully incomplete.

--
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Re:special software by pdbaby · 2006-10-08 23:26 · Score: 1, Flamebait

I know a guy who used to work on test suites at Microsoft who has since quit, given their awful attitude towards bugs in Vista, and got a Mac

--
Global symbol "$deity" requires explicit package name at line 2. - If only $scripture started "use strict;"
Re:special software by rs232 · 2006-10-08 23:31 · Score: 1

that 'special software' is an automatic testing application, probably developed internally and woefully incomplete.

What platform did they develop this 'special software' and why don't they rewrite Vista in it. What errors would you get if you ran it on itself.

--
davecb5620@gmail.com
Re:special software by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-08 23:46 · Score: 0

Sorry, I'm having a really hard time believing you. I'd be interested to hear more information about their testing procedures if you have it, though.
Re:special software by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 00:09 · Score: 1, Funny

I know a guy who craps gold.
Re:special software by suv4x4 · 2006-10-09 01:38 · Score: 4, Informative

I know a guy who used to work on test suites at Microsoft who has since quit, given their awful attitude towards bugs in Vista, and got a Mac

You'll see this kind of attitude in every bigger software company. I've had personal experiences like this in Adobe and Macromedia with their flagship products. Features are dropped, specs constantly changing and inconsistent between teams.

In some cases, you can spot the same feature implemented twice in source, with different interfaces, in different locations, and code linking randomly to one or the other, or even both (imagine updating this).

The bugs to be fixed are selected first for how obvious they are (likely to occur) and not how critical they are. This is why it's common that bugs that can totally wreck operation and lead to data loss may be left, if the occurence is rare or unlikely.

Everybody is in stress and the main goal is that you get the reviewed bug off your shoulders: if it's mildly reminiscent to something else, it's marked duplicate. If you can't reproduce it quickly, it's marked as fixed or not reproducible. Tricky bugs are marked "fact of life" or "deffered".

Successful companies and their products grow, but the way the products and resources are managed does not scale. Instead, programmers are expected to churn a major release every X months, screw everything else, and keep the cash flowing, the investors happy.

With Windows, we have a successful product that supports a huge ecosystem of applications (including legacy support), localization, usage cases etc. It's natural that in time, updates will become more rare, and will be much slower and more expensive to produce.

The trend of software-as-a-service is not coincidental with this situation. In 5 to 10 years the base software we use might be so complex and tough to work on, that the only way it can be sustained is by small, regular payments, and the updates will be small, incremental, security/performance oriented. No more big releases, no more rushes to fix bugs in the last moment.

This is the way evolution works. The other route is, of course, revolution...
Re:special software by DesertWolf0132 · 2006-10-09 01:49 · Score: 1

I think this "special software" would be more accurately described as a series of macros and scripts (in the dumbed down, Microsoft sense of the word) with a simple monitor listening for errors being written to the logs. As we all know, Microsoft logs are often woefully underpowered at recording major system errors. Of course this is a hunch but based on my past experience with Microsoft (dating back to the early days of DOS 2.0)I think it is a decent one.

--
No animals were harmed in the making of this sig.
Well, there was that one puppy, but he is all better now.
Re:special software by aplusjimages · 2006-10-09 01:59 · Score: 1

Wow that gives a whole new meaning to "golden shower".

--
Can I bum a sig?
Re:special software by dubl-u · 2006-10-09 03:16 · Score: 1

The trend of software-as-a-service is not coincidental with this situation. In 5 to 10 years the base software we use might be so complex and tough to work on, that the only way it can be sustained is by small, regular payments, and the updates will be small, incremental, security/performance oriented. No more big releases, no more rushes to fix bugs in the last moment.

I think the interesting part will come when we see large, old code bases that started in the software-as-service world. A few years back I switched to weekly iterations, and saw my productivity go up and my bug rates go down. My bet is a lot of the horrors you describe are the result of long product cycles.

I was a little disappointed to realize that people outside of software are familiar with this effect; "don't bite off more than you can chew" is something I now feel applies to a lot of software projects. I think a lot of code bases are terrible because people are used to spending months writing possibly dodgy code and then months more trying to clean it up. Working on a much smaller scale makes it easy to work clean. And if the iteration ends in a couple of days, it's a lot harder to pretend that something will get cleaned up "later".

As a bonus, producing a regular stream of software pacifies managers and customers, whose anxiety over the hoped-for upcoming release seems to be the source of a lot of the crazy.
Re:special software by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 03:30 · Score: 0

I really don't think most people will like "renting" something so basic to a computer's usage as the OS itself. Call me strange, but I have the feeling this will have the effect of commoditizing OSes. Only companies that don't survive on OS revenue (Apple) and open source OSes will keep putting out new releases that people actually go for due to fixed or no cost. Most people don't even think they PAY for Windows on their new PC since the cost is hidden in the actual initial purchase right now.

Imagine when they have to pay directly for it on a regular schedule or lose access to all their data. Yes, some customers will pony up the dough, but the lower middle class and the poor trying to hang on to technology will balk.
Re:special software by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 05:41 · Score: 0

This is the way evolution works. The other route is, of course, revolution...

Right, it's best to make sure we keep this straight. Software evolves; organisms do not. It has to work that way since evolutionary theory conflicts with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and thus indicates the theory is not correct.
Re:special software by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 05:46 · Score: 1, Interesting

In Office, tests are written primarily in C#, using an aspect oriented / attribute based test framework. This framework provides logging, process monitring, UI automation, methods for coordinating multi-machine tests, etc.

The automation system is responsible for running tests autonomously, which includes imaging machines, installing the product, distributing tests to machines, ensuring that a test-gone-bad does not prevent further tess from running, analyzing and storing results, etc. The database backing the automation system has roughly 50gb of data (consisting primarily of scenario and results data).

"Big Button" is actually a part of the test automation system which allows developers to create a change on their machine and run a batch of tests against it in a test lab. It handles collecting the changed bits, distributing them to various machines, selecting tests to run against the change, etc. One of its more notable features is that it allows developers or testers to specify failures to hold machines on in order to more readily reproduce, investigate, and fix intermittent failures.

During any given day, this system will run roughly 100,000 test scenarios against various builds of the product.

You laugh and joke about how it must be some archane system held together with shoestrings and bubblegum, but it is by far and wide the most advanced system of its type I've ever seen or heard of.
Re:special software by Crayon+Kid · 2006-10-09 05:52 · Score: 1

Ask yourselves, does software become increasingly more complex because it does more complicated stuff, or because it tends to become a kitchen sink?

--
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
Re:special software by k12linux · 2006-10-09 08:58 · Score: 1

Three things that struck me a few months ago as I was installing dozens of little updates to my Gentoo system:

1) Most open source apps do not suffer feature bloat. They aren't trying to entice new customers so they usually just do what they are supposed to do.

2) Updates are often done just to improve or optimize. Companies who are paying their programmers to churn out sellable products often can't afford to optimize every little bit of the app. Volunteers who just want to software to be its best can.

3) A bug that only affects 1 in 1,000,000 users can be serious if you are that 1 person having trouble. Those bugs are actually fixed more often in open source. You might have to be the one to fix them if the developers are pretty busy but at least it is an option.
Re:special software by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 08:03 · Score: 0

See this post above for info about Office testing procedures. http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=199 805&cid=16366749

Windows has similar procedures, but even bigger labs and more tests.

Time by Kangburra · 2006-10-08 23:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

This was a similar story for Windows ME, in the end the time to release became more important than the quality of the product. I would like to see Vista delayed until it's ready, even if that's not for six more months. In my view that would earn Microsoft more points than meeting a schedule and then needing to (service) patch it fairly quickly.

my $0.02

--
Common sense is not so common

Re:Time by scsirob · 2006-10-08 23:20 · Score: 4, Informative

Further delay aint happening. Vista will be out the door, regardless of the remaining bugs. They still have 'patch tuesday' to make updates, and the installation sequence itself already includes an initial update phase. So any really big bugs that remain present in the RTM build can still be fixed later.

--
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Re:Time by Hennell · 2006-10-08 23:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

But they will probally figure that delaying it for 6 more months suggests its still not good enough. So even if its not ready they'd prefer the patch route.

All a bit academic really, the adverage person will get it good or not and slashdoters will complain it crashes and is insecure. Its like the circle of life.
Re:Time by h2g2bob · 2006-10-08 23:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, I suppose it's not like they've got a reputation to protect...

Though to be fair people will have a go at MS if it's late OR if it has bugs, so they can't win. That said, either way people will be forced to use it.
Re:Time by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 01:27 · Score: 0

Vista hasn't been in development for five years.
Slashdot has already discussed this here:

"The Wall Street Journal has a long front-page article describing how
Jim Allchin approached Bill Gates in July, 2004, with the news that
then-Longhorn, now-Vista, was 'so complex that its writers would never
be able to make it run properly.' Now, Mr. Allchin argued, the jig was up. Microsoft
needed to start over.' And start over they did.
--------

So Vista has two years development after all the clever (read difficult) Longhorn features were scrapped. This Vista is just XP with bright red lipstick and some Botox.

It is designed purely to get some extra money for MS before web applications kick in and MS gets no more money from Windows. As almost all new PCs will have Vista installed (and most users will have to upgrade to run Vista) selling new PCs should provide a nice income for MS.
Re:Time by finity · 2006-10-09 01:37 · Score: 1

That update during the install is a great idea. I remember one of those worms made installing Windows hell. You'd install, then it'd reboot, and if it was connected to the Internet it'd be infected within about a minute. Too fast to install the necessary updates. I hope Microsoft gets vista right...
Re:Time by suffe · 2006-10-09 01:46 · Score: 1

So any really big bugs that remain present in the RTM build can still be fixed later.

Bill, is that you?

--

Karma: 2.71828182846 (Mostly due to small, fun pills)
Re:Time by Ucklak · 2006-10-09 02:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Getting it out the door is more important than if it's ready.

At the time it's released, Mac will have another OS out but that's beside the point. That only matters to people that are `on the fence` OS wise and not a significant number. In the halls of the OS engineers, it matters as it proves what insiders at MS have said that "Microsoft isn't able to ship products anymore."

When SP1 is released, there will be hoopla and hype that Vista will have even more features, be more stable, and even more secure.

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Re:Time by Dan+Ost · 2006-10-09 02:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

either way people will be forced to use it.

I don't know. Few people upgrade their version of Windows
unless they're getting a new machine. However, lots of people
are discovering that a 3 year old computer is perfectly capable
of doing what they need it to do and so doesn't really
need to be replaced unless the hardware is failing.

Even more interesting, for the first time ever, Apple's
offerings are starting to be percieved as a real alternative
that is, arguably, comparably priced.

It will be interesting to see what impact, if any, Vista has
on the sale of Apple's computers.

--

*sigh* back to work...
Re:Time by edwardpickman · 2006-10-09 02:30 · Score: 1

Damn, every time I start to get over it some one has to mention ME then the nightmares come back. For years I refused to buy off the shelf equipment because ME was the only option. It's literally what got me to build all my own systems so I could avoid having it on a machine. I still remember installing it and having most of my fonts gone. Ever try to use a computer where 75% of the system fonts didn't install? It isn't pretty. ME was an early beta and should have never been on the market. Vista scares me because once they release it they'll force the venodrs to install it in new systems. If it's a mess your only option will be build it yourself but since XP is locked up you won't be able to get copies to even self install. Not happy with XP Pro so I really don't have much hope with Vista. I need a couple of new systems but I was trying to hold out until the quad cores settled in. I may have to build out the systems in the narrow window between the Quads coming out and Vista being released. I need 64 bit so Win 2000 won't work on the new systems. Life with Windows. The real pain is software and hardware vendors have been really slow to adopt 64 bit. There was some resistence with 32 bit but they are being dragged into 64 bit kicking and screaming. The advantages are pretty massive for high end users but questionable for the average person. Just drives me nuts that with dirt cheap ram we are limited to 4 gig of ram. That was one of the cool things about Amiga. I had a 3000 and it had a limit of 1 gig back when WIndows machines maxed at 32 meg. There was no way to put that much on a machine but the operating system allowed for it. Another cool thing with Amiga was you could add ram to most cards you installed. Winodws has always struck me as being very narrow minded. It's aimed at the average user and little consideration is given to professional use. I wasn't a huge Amiga, I found it a pain to use, but it had a very open approach and had some pretty massive advantages over Windows systems at the time. It was way ahead of it's time. Something no one has ever been able to say about Windows. If you are going to have a five year OS life it should be designed for five years down the road so it doesn't go out of date right after launch.
Re:Time by ClosedSource · 2006-10-09 02:47 · Score: 1

"For years I refused to buy off the shelf equipment because ME was the only option."

There was never a time when Windows ME was the only version of Windows on sale.
Re:Time by mackyrae · 2006-10-09 03:30 · Score: 2, Informative

XP is going really cheap now. I think one of my friends got it for $80 or something. With Vista about to be released, they're trying to get the old XP backstock out the door. Just buy your XP disks now and hold them until the quads come out.

--
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
Re:Time by zenithcoolest · 2006-10-09 03:35 · Score: 1

I guess the real problem lies in the more stress given on the Security Center in the Vista with Microsoft more keen to develop its own security services. A Microsoft Antivirus software is not so far.
Re:Time by Macthorpe · 2006-10-09 04:13 · Score: 1

Maybe they're being percieved as an alternative but they show a frightening inability to convert that into sold systems.

As of June the 1st they still have a personal computer marketshare of 3.8 percent which doesn't seem to have moved since October of last year. In fact, in 2002 that figure was around 3.5. 0.3% growth in three years is nothing to crow about, let's be honest.

If anything, Apple should worry that though Windows XP might be losing market slightly, it isn't to Apple. It's this wonderful category 'Other' they should be worrying about.

--
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Re:Time by Blakey+Rat · 2006-10-09 05:36 · Score: 1

To be fair, Windows Vista at Release Candidate is still leaps and bounds better than Windows ME was after service packs. Plus, if you were even slightly intelligent, you'd buy Windows 2000 instead of ME.

--
Comment of the year
Re:Time by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 06:30 · Score: 0

> I would like to see Vista delayed until it's ready

Vista _will_ be released this year, but Christmas may have to be delayed several months to achieve that.
Re:Time by Kangburra · 2006-10-09 19:43 · Score: 1

To be fair, Windows Vista at Release Candidate is still leaps and bounds better than Windows ME was after service packs. Plus, if you were even slightly intelligent, you'd buy Windows 2000 instead of ME.

If you wanted a consumer type computer you got ME installed on it. Sure you could still buy 2K and ignore the ME cost of the original machine but you couldn't not buy it.

--
Common sense is not so common

Face it, it's Microsoft... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-08 23:20 · Score: 0

No matter how much bug fixing they do, their products are, for the most part, still going to suck. Users will still get the lingering bug-fix as a service pack, also enabling Microsoft to butt-fuck it's users with some more DRM.

Huh.. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-08 23:21 · Score: 5, Funny

Half a million installs, and 450k of them crashed.

Color me unimpressed.

Re:Huh.. by Angostura · 2006-10-08 23:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Depends how you interpret the figures. I have a stable, well configured Mac. Last week, I had a dodgy 3rd party app that crashed 3 times. Each time the Apple crash reporter asked me to send a report to Apple.

If I had been running a beta version of the operating system I would have gone ahead and sent, on the grounds that it might have been a bad interaction between app and OS. In the event I said no.

You need to know more about what is triggering the crash reporter.
Re:Huh.. by SunTzuWarmaster · 2006-10-09 00:20 · Score: 1

5,000,000 million testers, ~500,000 people that REPORT the errors.

Personally, I can't remember the last time I crashed _and_ decided to send the data to M$.
Re:Huh.. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 00:30 · Score: 0

10-15 years, and whatever OS you are using is still behind Windows: Color us all unimpressed.
Re:Huh.. by alohatiger · 2006-10-09 00:56 · Score: 5, Funny

Or maybe 499,999 didn't crash, and one of them crashed 450,000 times.

--
Bigtime Consulting - "We're the best because we cost the most"
Re:Huh.. by grahamdrew · 2006-10-09 01:01 · Score: 1

Where are you getting the 5,000,000 number from? Half-million != 5,000,000

--
// Dumps core here
Re:Huh.. by blackest_k · 2006-10-09 01:05 · Score: 1

"Personally, I can't remember the last time I crashed _and_ decided to send the data to M$."

why not sometimes you get feedback which identifies the problem and a solution. You don't have to like microsoft to send in a crash report. It is in your own interest as well as microsofts
got to admit i thought it was a one way street, but i know my brother got some feedback and identified a problem.

--
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Re:Huh.. by Blaaguuu · 2006-10-09 01:26 · Score: 1

So does that mean 50,000 of them didn't crash?

I dunno... That sounds pretty good for MS!

--
My hand touched her hand. Her hand touched her boob. By the transitive property, I got some boob! Algebra is awesome!
Re:Huh.. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 01:32 · Score: 0

Hah ha. The operating system *I* use has been ahead of windows almost since the beginning.
Unless you're specifically talking about installed base on desktop/laptop machines.

That metric really doesn't affect me in any kind of way, though. I bet you brag to all your
friends about it, though.
Re:Huh.. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 01:51 · Score: 0

The Slashdot summary said that 450000 systems sent crash data, not that Microsoft got 450000 crash reports.
Re:Huh.. by Captain+Hook · 2006-10-09 02:26 · Score: 1

Nope, it means 49995 machines registered the download/install and then were either left turned off, or promptly got reinstalled back to something without Vista running on it.

Still, MS must be proud of those 5 machines.

--
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
Re:Huh.. by I'm+Don+Giovanni · 2006-10-09 02:30 · Score: 1

Yeah, I sent in a crash report a few years ago and immediately got a response saying that the problem had been previously reported, and told me how to fix it (updating a driver).

Plus, if I were running a beta, then I would definitely send in crash reports; that's what betas are for, after all.

--
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Re:Huh.. by The+Cydonian · 2006-10-09 02:47 · Score: 1

Half a million installs, and 450k of them crashed.

"450k ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates

--
More than mere navel gazing.
Re:Huh.. by mackyrae · 2006-10-09 02:47 · Score: 1

When I did that last, it came back with a message about as descriptive as "oops, something went wrong. you figure it out. check some drivers or something". How wonderfully useful.

--
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
Re:Huh.. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 02:48 · Score: 0

Ever considered not having your personal biases taint the interpretation of what you read?

So eager are you to be critical, you twist and distort what is written to fit your world view. Opinions are worthless unless based on objective assessment of facts.

450K crash reports are not all Vista crashing. Most of them will be application crashes, and odds are most of them will be non-Microsoft applications that can no longer get away with using dodgy quick and dirty programming techniques and lax security.
Re:Huh.. by VertigoAce · 2006-10-09 03:13 · Score: 1

Windows Vista has a new app in the Control Panel called "Problem Reports and Solutions". This keeps track of all problem reports that have been submitted and what the response is from Microsoft. If there is a fix from MS, it will tell you (right now this tends to be a message saying the issue is fixed in pre-RTM builds). If it's a third-party application, you might get a message like "An analyst at Microsoft has investigated this problem and determined that an unkown error occurred in Adobe Acrobat Reader / Adobe Reader. This software was created by Adobe Systems Incorporated.", along with a link to the appropriate product support page on Adobe's website.

By gathering these in one place for a user to keep track of, I imagine Microsoft will be encouraged to make better use of the solution reporting aspects of the system.
Re:Huh.. by daviddennis · 2006-10-09 03:14 · Score: 1

I wonder how long they ran them for?

Some of them were probably trying to get it to crash, and that can distort the numbers.

I know a lot of people on here have Windows XP systems that have run forever as long as updates are made, but what's the average uptime for a Windows system? It could be that almost all Windows machines crash at some time during the beta period timeframe, in which case the 450,000 crashes would be expected.

I might expect most people to send the data to MS because you as beta tester want to help.

D
Re:Huh.. by ThinkFr33ly · 2006-10-09 03:54 · Score: 1

The crash reports are for both the OS and applications running on it. Anytime an incompatible 3rd party app crashes, crash data is gathered and you are given the option to send it to MS. In addition, it is very likely that a person will try to run that same incompatible application over and over in hopes it will work.

At any rate, my personal experience with Vista is that it's as solid as XP once you run RC1 or later. Apps do crash (usually older ones), but the OS itself is very stable.

And before you make a snide remark about XP's stability, know that it will only expose the fact you haven't used Windows in 6 or 7 years.
Re:Huh.. by Nirvelli · 2006-10-09 04:44 · Score: 1

While working with the Vista beta, I have accidentally crashed programs many times while trying to force drivers for things into the system, and trying to get programs to run that weren't made for Vista, etc.
I haven't once had a crash in Vista that came up in standard usage, only in odd circumstances where you immediately think "shit, why did I push that button, I am an idiot."
Re:Huh.. by Z34107 · 2006-10-09 05:01 · Score: 1

Uptime on the Vista beta boxes is likely to be low - on a test system, you're going to have frequent reboots, I would suspect. Besides, this is the home-user, desktop version - Longhorn Server is coming out later.

My Vista install has crashed a few times - 90% due to DivX not liking Vista, a few due to Media Center not liking DivX, and the rest video drivers crashing. All but twice Vista RESTARTED the driver and booted my game again, meaning I only saw two bluescreens.

All the bugs, minus the DivX related ones, have been reported as "fixed" in some RTM build. Turst 'em or not, we'll see when the release (or a beta refresh) comes out.

--
DATABASE WOW WOW
Re:Huh.. by Blakey+Rat · 2006-10-09 05:32 · Score: 1

I enjoy how the thought of buggy third party applications apparently never crosses Slashdot's collective mind. I know that 99% of crashes on my PC are third party applications that frankly probably ignored the documentation and did something stupid. Microsoft has good people working on finding programs that rely on undocumented behaviors and putting in various bypasses to deal with them, but you can't expect them to be able to test the hundreds of thousands of applications out there before the public beta.

--
Comment of the year
Re:Huh.. by Bobby+Mahoney · 2006-10-09 06:06 · Score: 1

No, 450k REPORTED, crashes.
The 50k clicked the other button.

--
!#&*
Re:Huh.. by BharatShyam · 2006-10-09 08:23 · Score: 1

I work at Microsoft on Machine Feedback and Reliability amongst other things. I'd like to clear up some terminology on the news story in the NYT. Several persons here are making the assumption that "Crash" is the same as "Blue Screen" or "OS Crash". In fact, what was meant in the article when we the word "crash" was used was that some application on the OS crashed. The OS itself did not crash. Any kind of third party application can crash due to bad programming . Many times third party applications will crash exactly because we have closed off a problem. Sometimes, an inbox application will crash due to extensions. Sometimes there may even be an OS crash (and those are usually much fewer) due a third party driver. Here, in the Windows Product team, we are deeply dedicated to making not just our operating system better but to find and help fix every third party developer's bugs. We even make crash data for third party developers available at a great web site (http://winqual.microsoft.com/ - which is currently being upgraded and will be available again soon). The story here is that we have unprecedented focus on looking at the very problems that users have and are taking these problems and automatically filing bugs that are fixed by developers at Microsoft and by third party ISVs. You too can take advantage of many of these mechanisms by signing up and taking ownership of your binaries on the site mentioned above.
Re:Huh.. by BharatShyam · 2006-10-09 08:30 · Score: 1

You are absolutely correct. That number was for crashes of all applications, not OS crashes. See my other posting.
Re:Huh.. by Jesus_666 · 2006-10-09 10:28 · Score: 1

Ah yes, I once had a mainboard like that too...

Wait a minute, that mainboard is still in my_MQ\ZY61?'DK7N.DP#+U^4:.$NO CARRIER

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)

I wouldn't want to be the guy by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-08 23:21 · Score: 4, Funny

"More than half a million computer users have installed Vista test software, and 450,000 of the systems have sent crash data back to Microsoft."

That is the kind of information that can get people fired...

Re:I wouldn't want to be the guy by jonnyj · 2006-10-09 00:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

The real world is probably worse than the statistics suggest.

I tried to install Vista on three PCs, all of which passed Microsoft's Ready for Vista testing tool, but all three failed before they were able to sent any crash data back to Microsoft. Two installs hung due because Vista didn't like my SATA / motherboard combination. The other got its knickers twisted over my partitioning scheme. And that was before I got a chance to find out if any of my other hardware (printer, scanner, TV card, firewire, network, graphics, CD/DVD, monitor, soundcard, suspend/resume, camera, etc) had any kind of working support.

Recent Linux kernels work perfectly with all this hardware. Could Vista be the first Microsoft OS that lags behind Linux for hardware support?
Re:I wouldn't want to be the guy by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 00:57 · Score: 0

Could Vista be the first Microsoft OS that lags behind Linux for hardware support?

MS windows has always been behind linux for it, MS Windows + external drivers did have a lot of hardware support but in this case if your computer was unstable it was always the fault of the external driver! I personnally experienced a very funny bug with NT4 and the driver for a iomega zip and a very nice kernel panic but noone was responsible neither iomega, neither Microsoft (brand new PC with no software and only MS certified drivers) In the same computer linux was working very fine even with the iomega zip...
Re:I wouldn't want to be the guy by The+Second+Horseman · 2006-10-09 02:02 · Score: 1

That almost certainly includes application- and driver-related crash dumps. In the case of the apps, I would doubt the OS crashed.
Re:I wouldn't want to be the guy by mackyrae · 2006-10-09 02:50 · Score: 1

Linux supports more hardware OOB than any other OS. That's why when you buy a peripheral, you need a driver disk for Windows, but all you have to do on Linux is plug it in.

--
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
Re:I wouldn't want to be the guy by thinsoldier · 2006-10-09 04:22 · Score: 1

begging and pleading:

I tried to run/install many recent live cd linix distros on my PC and some of my relatives PCs. None would even boot. I only got one old knoppix to work on my cd and 1 old ubuntu to work on one of my aunts systems. None of the systems have anywhere nears the amount of fancy hardware you describe in your system.

PLEASE tell me what Linux distro you got to work on that thing!

I'm even willling to try one of the paid for distros as long as it ACTUALLY JUST WORKS and costs less than XP
Re:I wouldn't want to be the guy by Plutonite · 2006-10-09 10:04 · Score: 1

You're a girl so I won't say anything...

But I could say a lot of things about proprietory drivers and wireless chips and video cards and the nightmares that we go through every time we buy a new peripheral that doesn't have generic drivers :D

It's not that windows is better at running the hardware or supporting it, it's just that the market demands that manufacturers put their greatest efforts in the Windows platform.
Re:I wouldn't want to be the guy by mackyrae · 2006-10-09 16:43 · Score: 1

Okay, yeah a lot of times you have to go download drivers, but for a *lot* of things (especially more recent, I've heard older ATI ones have trouble), they're available. There are really obscure pieces of hardware that has a driver for Linux and some really common (like WinModems) things that it doesn't support. Still, if you're not downloading or otherwise installing a driver (like from a disk), there are more built-in drivers for Linux than for Windows. It's all those disks that come with everything that make it look like Windows supports it. If you didn't have that disk, you'd be in the same situation as if you're using Linux, and probably worse because Linux has a lot of built-in ones. And what does being a girl have to do with it?

--
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux

FUD? by bcmm · 2006-10-08 23:22 · Score: 0

WTF is the "Button Room" about? I doubt they actually have special hardware for software testing...

--
# cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.

Re:FUD? by Dr.+Eggman · 2006-10-08 23:37 · Score: 2, Funny

Nah, it's just a fancy place to bring visitors to. They probably bought it off a 50's sci-fi movie set, spinning reels and all.

--
Demented But Determined.
Re:FUD? by nstlgc · 2006-10-08 23:54 · Score: 2, Informative

IIRC it's the monitoring room for the Office Crash Assistant, the place where you send your data to after you crash. They analyse this data attempting to find patterns that lead to crashes. (I'm not sure how good this helps Office, but for Windows itself it's an excellent tool to find broken driver releases.)

--
I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
Re:FUD? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 00:12 · Score: 0

Are you kidding? Why wouldn't you have special hardware for testing? They may even have keyboards with robots to press the buttons to test the keyboard drivers.

They will need PCs to test multiple hardware / software configurations, running test scripts to connect to Wireless LANs, test scripts to test Active Directory integration. There's so much to test, you'd need loads of PC's running test scripts!

Plus you might want to try data fuzzing attacks and run every Windows exploit ever made on Vista going right back to Windows 98.
Re:FUD? by Bob_Villa · 2006-10-09 00:28 · Score: 1

C'mon, don't you know anything? It is obviously where their staff of 10,000 monkeys press buttons randomly on keyboards of pcs running Vista. This is how they test for their bugs. If the monkeys can't find it, Joe Sixpack should be safe and secure.

Statistics! by shreevatsa · 2006-10-08 23:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

More than half a million computer users have installed Vista test software, and 450,000 of the systems have sent crash data back to Microsoft.

In other words, about nine out of ten systems using Vista crashed at some point. And that's counting just those who sent the crash reports. :-)

Re:Statistics! by ImaNihilist · 2006-10-08 23:26 · Score: 4, Funny

That's really what happened in North Korea, they just don't want to admit it. Some noob installed Vista on one of the nuclear control computers, and then it crashed, and boom.

Now the world will be destroyed, and we'll find out it was really Steve Ballmer's plan all along...then he'll throw a chair at something.

Begun the dark times have.
Re:Statistics! by rvw · 2006-10-08 23:27 · Score: 1

I think crash data can also apply to applications that crash. Still, if only 10% has a system crash, that's a lot!
Re:Statistics! by 1337Garda · 2006-10-08 23:28 · Score: 1

Is that really alot? I'm actually asking. That would include every time that an application crashed ever and a report was sent. Who goes for weeks on end using either OSX, Linux/Unix or even XP as their desktop and wouldn't have at least one application crash at some point.
Re:Statistics! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-08 23:32 · Score: 0

Who goes for weeks on end using either OSX, Linux/Unix or even XP as their desktop and wouldn't have at least one application crash at some point.

Hi.
Re:Statistics! by Don_dumb · 2006-10-08 23:36 · Score: 1

And that's counting just those who sent the crash reports.
Why would you install a beta version of an operating system and not send in crash reports?
Perhaps it was because 1 in every 10 couldn't get it to install/boot/work

--
If this were really happening, what would you think?
Re:Statistics! by jkrise · 2006-10-08 23:48 · Score: 1

In other words, about nine out of ten systems using Vista crashed at some point. And that's counting just those who sent the crash reports. :-)

Or it could be that 1 out of every Vista system crashed 9 times.... and the remaining systems went into BSOD before the reports got dispatched :-)

Did you notice ALL the chairs AND Tables are taken? The developers seem to have learnt their lessons!

--
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Re:Statistics! by Proud+like+a+god · 2006-10-08 23:55 · Score: 1

FYI, I've been running Mandriva2006 Linux for months with no problems, rarely booting into WinXP for games. I'm sure there must have been a few minor crashed apps with this setup in the past few years, but I'm not remembering them atm. Happy computing :-)
Re:Statistics! by petes_PoV · 2006-10-08 23:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

yes, it is a lot - in fact it's quite disgraceful.
The only reason people are even considering Vista (given this level of failure) is that we have become so used to PCs crashing that we're blind to it.
Imagine if your TV switched itself off and took a minute or two to come back as often as your computer crashes. You'd send it back and demand a proper one - that worked.
I'm aware of all the arguments about 3rd party software/drivers etc. being the real cause. That's as maybe, but if the Vista architecture was designed to be robust and tolerant to these faults, then the problems we see just wouldn't arise. After all, it's not like MS can say that faulty drivers are a new problem

--
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Re:Statistics! by jellomizer · 2006-10-08 23:57 · Score: 1, Offtopic

I had servers running for years without the application or OS crashing. The reasons why the system goes down.
1. Long Term Power Failure.
2. Hardware failure.

That is all. Thank you come again.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Statistics! by Dobeln · 2006-10-09 00:02 · Score: 1

Server != Multi-use computer. Repeat as many times as are needed.
Re:Statistics! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 00:14 · Score: 0

Why would you install a beta version of an operating system and not send in crash reports?

Because you're a M*crosoft fan-boy who just wants to play with the next thing that comes out, and refuse to admit there are faults with their software.

Yes, they exist. I work with one.

-M
Re:Statistics! by endemoniada · 2006-10-09 00:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm getting a little tired of people comparing a computer running an OS to a TV set or similar.

The TV will do one thing, and one thing only. That's displaying an analog signal as moving images and sound. That's all. The day that's all Windows will ever have to do, that's the day you can demand a refund.

--
Blog -
Re:Statistics! by Tim+C · 2006-10-09 00:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't know about Vista, but on XP the default is to submit crash reports for all crashes. That includes software you are yourself developing. Yes, you soon learn to switch that off, but at least some of those reports will be from developers writing code for Vista and submitting crash reports for their own software (or testers doing so).

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:Statistics! by rlp · 2006-10-09 00:24 · Score: 1

Or maybe ONE system crashed 450,000 times. I hate when that happens.

--
[Insert pithy quote here]
Re:Statistics! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 00:25 · Score: 0

I've been running a pretty unstable Gentoo install, and the only things that's crashed in the last two years are the extremely experimental pre-alpha compiz-quinnstorm/beryl packages. But that stuff isn't even in the Portage tree yet. Before that it was a kernel panic from failing PATA cables, IIRC. Other than that, nothing. And I should mention that I torrent and stuff with Azureus or rTorrent almost 24/7 and update world every weekend.

And nothing's crashed on my Debian fileserver in the four years or running it, of course, and yes, it is kept up to date.
Re:Statistics! by arth1 · 2006-10-09 01:12 · Score: 1

Why would you install a beta version of an operating system and not send in crash reports?

Yes, in fact, I would. If I were beta-testing an OS, I would make sure I did that on an isolated machine, until I was certain that it was ready for being hooked into a network. And an isolated machine won't be able to send bug reports.

--
*Art
Re:Statistics! by MrNaz · 2006-10-09 01:22 · Score: 1

Amen.

--
I hate printers.
Re:Statistics! by MrNaz · 2006-10-09 01:25 · Score: 1

That'll work for desktops as well, provided you only touch the machine as often as you touch your servers, and install the same software set.

So feel free to install any OS you want on your desktop, but once its set up you're only allowed to touch it once a week to patch it. Other than that you must disconnect the keyboard and monitor and stare at the power LED.

There you have my recipe for a desktop with the same uptime as a server.

--
I hate printers.
Re:Statistics! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 01:29 · Score: 0

there are a few reasons...
for me, it didn't recognise my network card thus no internet. :s an onboard 3com card, no drivers for my version (it is reasonably popular MB but only the pci card version had a driver.)
I used it for about maximum of 4 hours per session, (used it with only the programs available on install most times I installed. I had to try a *few* options.) It was too annoying and useless for me.

I quickly returned to the suse/compiz fold. :)

almost got enough motivation to hand a report in manually via suse (less useful i understand, more of a complaint system?), but gave up at the before i gained sight of the Microsoft page.

does that ring true for others? probably similar.
Re:Statistics! by Jerom · 2006-10-09 01:39 · Score: 1

I see you never had to program the embedded software for a plasma TV. In terms of processing power it beats the crap out of everything consumers where running 10 years ago.

And if your tv only shows you images, that's quite sad.

No tuner, no pll, powermanagement, OSD, autocolor calibration,...

sigh...
Re:Statistics! by Ginger+Unicorn · 2006-10-09 01:56 · Score: 1

that's still a pitifully small amount of complexity compared the possible permutations of functionality windows has to deal with.

--
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Re:Statistics! by mackyrae · 2006-10-09 02:58 · Score: 1

Uh...me?

Three months of Linux, no crashing, but my motherboard is about to commit suicide (yay! warranty!).

Who the hell at Gateway decided a dual core processor with a plastic fan to cool it and a .75"x2" vent was a good idea? Overheat much?!

--
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
Re:Statistics! by thinsoldier · 2006-10-09 04:36 · Score: 1

Using OS X.4
Counting all day friday and Monday (so far up to 12:30pm)
the following have crashed/locked up:
Firefox
IE5
Colloquy
Transmit
Safari
Mail
Entourage
Photoshop
Illustrator
Acrobat
Google Earth
Iphoto
Microsoft Messenger
Microsoft Word
VLC
VNCViewer

The big difference between OS X and Windows is that when things crash in OS X it....somehow... isn't as big a deal to me (except for Photoshop). And very very very very often in windows I WISH something would just crash and go away or let me force it to quit but it just doesnt. It keeps running and running and sucking up more and more ram and no amount of 'end process' will kill it!!!

In OS X I can kill anything any time it needs to be killed with 100% success rate.
Re:Statistics! by dave562 · 2006-10-09 06:30 · Score: 1

In OS X I can kill anything any time it needs to be killed with 100% success rate.
You can do the same thing in Windows, but you need a third party application to do. http://www.sysinternals.com/
Re:Statistics! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 06:32 · Score: 0

I would like to propose a new mod category: "Sad but true"
Re:Statistics! by Jesus_666 · 2006-10-09 10:43 · Score: 1

The TV will do one thing, and one thing only. That's displaying an analog signal as moving images and sound. That's all. The day that's all Windows will ever have to do, that's the day you can demand a refund.

It also decrypts the signal from the receiver, carefully avoiding the dreaded analog hole. A modern TV uses more processing power to restrict my freedom than my PC did ten years ago to enhance it.

Come to think of it, that'd be an interesting prospect for a sci-fi story - a civilization where more computing power is used to enforce arbitrary "copyright protections" and to circumvent them than for everything else combined...

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Re:Statistics! by Mipsalawishus · 2006-10-17 12:42 · Score: 1

"Come to think of it, that'd be an interesting prospect for a sci-fi story - a civilization where more computing power is used to enforce arbitrary "copyright protections" and to circumvent them than for everything else combined...

I think "Vista" would be a good name for it.

450,000 of 500,000 people report crashes ? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-08 23:28 · Score: 5, Funny

Obiously 50,000 users didn't test anything at all.

Just wanted to thank god for linux.

Re:450,000 of 500,000 people report crashes ? by ledow · 2006-10-08 23:32 · Score: 1

Or turned off crash reporting, or a behind a strict firewall, or never finished installing the thing, or never managed to get their network card/modem working, or don't didn't use it on an Internet connected PC.

When you look at the possibilities, it's almost certain that EVERY user experienced some kind of crash, however minor. Whether that reflects on the state of Vista, or the state of modern operating systems in general, I don't know.
Re:450,000 of 500,000 people report crashes ? by electronerdz · 2006-10-09 00:05 · Score: 1

Or it crashed so badly, that sending a report just wasn't going to work anymore.

--
Kernel Krunch - Part of a Complete OS
Re:450,000 of 500,000 people report crashes ? by Dawsons · 2006-10-09 00:08 · Score: 1

Linus Torvalds=god?? :O that is some reference! :D
Re:450,000 of 500,000 people report crashes ? by toetagger1 · 2006-10-09 01:27 · Score: 1

Or better yet, 50,000 installs of Vista crashed so badly, they weren't even able to send the crash reports!

--
who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
Re:450,000 of 500,000 people report crashes ? by slidersv · 2006-10-09 04:48 · Score: 1

This post is exactly why i opened up this article. I feel better already :)
Ofcourse FC6 is postponed because of bugs as well... By the whole 6 days!

--
there is no issue with my network
Re:450,000 of 500,000 people report crashes ? by kevjava · 2006-10-09 11:28 · Score: 1

> Obiously 50,000 users didn't test anything at all.

No, those are the ones whose crashes were in the network stack.

This surely is the solution to sift through it all by QuatermassX · 2006-10-08 23:37 · Score: 3, Funny

Surely Microsoft could use this to sift through such an vast quantity of code: http://www.google.com/codesearch

Just please don't start hurling chairs at my Karma!

Won't someone think of the children?? by gilgongo · 2006-10-08 23:46 · Score: 0, Troll

Or more accurately - the USERS.

How much, if any, of this "testing" is to establish whether anyone who will have to use Vista be able to do so without going mad?

We know that Vista and Office Vista (or whatever the next version of Office will be called) will be the most bloated software onslaught known to man. Sure, Clippy is dead, but what about all the other "productivity enhancements" that are there simply to ensure that the MS product managers who pushed through these changes will get their pay rises?

Rant rant rant I could go on all day.

--
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"

450,000? by necro2607 · 2006-10-08 23:48 · Score: 1

Hmm.. exactly 450,000 machines eh?

What are the chances? Damn.

Re:450,000? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 00:51 · Score: 0

This is just a guess but I'd say 1 in 500,000.

Re:No wonder! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-08 23:48 · Score: 0

>>did anyone notice ALL the chairs are taken?

That is done on purpose so Ballmer won't throw them anymore.

Re:No wonder! by dk-software-engineer · 2006-10-08 23:50 · Score: 1

It looks like a meeting. People rarely seem professional at meetings.

The efficiency of a group of people is not the sum of intelligence, it's the sum of stupidity.

That's the way it is by sirjohn · 2006-10-08 23:55 · Score: 1

I think we should take this as the way to release complex software... No matter how many tests you can perform the system will be buggy in some way.. Better to patch it as often as you can, there are simply too many case scenarios out there to live with..

Re:No wonder! by AidanApWord · 2006-10-08 23:57 · Score: 1

Regarding: The picture linked above

Anyone spot the need for shades in the room? Perhaps someone at Micrsoft does indeed think the future is that bright ...?

And what a team demo like this has to do with bug fixing I don't know?

In terms of directly dealing with the problem(s) and imperfections of a software release ... everybody sitting in a room taking notes on someone's demo ... I am not sure the world is ready for what real software enginnering really looks like. I (and the vast majority of my team mates) do our best and most productive work when keeping such 'mass migrations to a meeting room' to an absolute minimum.

And, however much the software engineering world is predominantly male, why is there only 1 lady in the room?

Anyone else wonder if this picture was taken for padding the media story? If so, then I have to admit they did work hard at making it look messy and busy. Unfocussed and secondary ... but messy and busy, indeed.

Aidanapword

More info? by Toreo+asesino · 2006-10-09 00:00 · Score: 1

"This is where special software automatically exercises programs rapidly while looking for errors."

I for one would love to know more about the tools they use for automated testing.

In my company, we have a build & testing server running compiler and NUnit tests for all data-layer tests (complete tests like "load all of everything" and more specific tests like "authorise user with known bad credentials - expect login-failure") alongside NUnitForms tests for the application-layer (random, frantic clicking's everywhere and specific user-journey tests).

All in all, it's quite a good system for rooting out the majority of bugs, but I'm always looking for ways of improving this side of things.

I can only imagine Microsoft must use similar techniques, but obviously a tad more intensive; can anyone shed any light?

--
throw new NoSignatureException();

Re:More info? by Slashcrap · 2006-10-09 01:47 · Score: 0

I can only imagine Microsoft must use similar techniques, but obviously a tad more intensive; can anyone shed any light?

That's quite an imagination you've got there. Ever thought of becoming a Sci-Fi author?

Vista SP2 by Rulke · 2006-10-09 00:01 · Score: 1

As usual with microsoft products.. i will wait for SP 2 to arrive before putting any thought into actually getting it...

Re:Vista SP2 by dvhh · 2006-10-09 00:10 · Score: 1

gee only wait for a SP2 to be released, as for myself I never use an NT os before it reached SP4 level.
Re:Vista SP2 by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 01:09 · Score: 0

I completely agree...
Waiting for SP2 regarding any release of NT should be company policy everywhere by now.

I would just add to this: "I will wait for the WGA activation crack".

Yes, you can use hardware to track down bugs... by klubar · 2006-10-09 00:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

Hardware is almost required to debug some low-level system code. Real-time stuff, like device drivers and scheduler really requires hardware tracer to determine what happened and when.

With XP, almost all of the crashes are due to bad (usually non-MS) device drivers. If you run a system with pure MS drivers and quality hardware you'll never see a BSOD. If you run the usual business suite of software (Office, Outlook, IE) you probably never see an application crash.

It's the crappy hardware and badly written drivers that cause the crashes. That's the difference with Apple.... since they control the hardware there's less crashes due to bad hardware and there are fewer third-party drivers for Mac hardware. The software is probably the same quality.

Re:Yes, you can use hardware to track down bugs... by ookaze · 2006-10-09 00:32 · Score: 2, Informative

Hardware is almost required to debug some low-level system code. Real-time stuff, like device drivers and scheduler really requires hardware tracer to determine what happened and when

Huh ? This is called a serial console terminal, and I wouldn't call a terminal a 'hardware tracer'. Other OS just use a serial console to debug device drivers and scheduler, with most debugging done in software.

With XP, almost all of the crashes are due to bad (usually non-MS) device drivers. If you run a system with pure MS drivers and quality hardware you'll never see a BSOD

BS ! I've had a (documented on MS bugs site) BSOD just after install with WinXP for my Adaptec card, and not a cheap one.
Unfortunately, the WinXP native drivers caused the BSOD, I even had to install Linux on the PC (which worked perfectly) to be able to install the driver from the vendor instead of the MS one, so that WinXP don't crash anymore.
Unless you tell me Adaptec are not quality hardware (the card bought in 1999 is still working great BTW, and was not crashing in Win9x).

If you run the usual business suite of software (Office, Outlook, IE) you probably never see an application crash

No, but I've lost complete big documents because of Word (he couldn't read its own saved files, thankfully I have OOo now, that saved me several times already), I won't even talk about IE.

It's the crappy hardware and badly written drivers that cause the crashes. That's the difference with Apple.... since they control the hardware there's less crashes due to bad hardware and there are fewer third-party drivers for Mac hardware. The software is probably the same quality

In my case, I know that's complete BS (that crappy hardware causes the crashes), as I've run Linux on the same hardware as my only Windows client.
And while the Linux tagged along just fine for weeks, the WinXP couldn't last more than a week without locking up or becoming unusable.
Is it really badly written drivers or crappy OS ? I had an old Creative Live ! card that was dying (and finally died).
WinXP was BSODing regularly when it was dying, then when it died, just BSOD at every boot. I then installed Linux on the PC, and it just tagged along, never crashed, telling me it couldn't initialise the driver, the driver saying it couldn't initialise the card.
Re:Yes, you can use hardware to track down bugs... by javilon · 2006-10-09 01:27 · Score: 1

This is absolutely irrelevant. In real terms, most people see system crashes due to malware entering the machine. Is Microsoft doing something about security? something effective, because if they aren't, Vista will not change anything. Microsoft has *always* had security as a second thought. I am not expecting that to change.

--

When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
Re:Yes, you can use hardware to track down bugs... by 3vi1 · 2006-10-09 02:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you run a system with pure MS drivers and quality hardware you'll never see a BSOD

Does Microsoft make any video drivers that can even run the Aero GUI? Or, by "quality hardware" do you mean really old generic hardware supported by MS's generic drivers? I've never seen any MS drivers for my scanner, printer, webcam... basically nothing in my "quality" system other than the MS keyboard. So, I don't know if what you propose is even possible.

While there are lots of entries in the MS KB that are totally due to 3rd party drivers, there are many that are not. So, even if what you propose is possible, it's unlikely to be correct.

If you run the usual business suite of software (Office, Outlook, IE) you probably never see an application crash.

Okay, you're high, aren't you?

Exploits come out every other day to crash IE And, there are hundreds if not thousands of MS KB articles regarding Outlook crashes. Office? I've seen it crash many times due to internal bugs. And, when it crashes, you can't shut down Windows because it tells you that you must exit all Office apps first - thanks to MS's wonderful OS integration.
Re:Yes, you can use hardware to track down bugs... by metamatic · 2006-10-09 02:38 · Score: 2, Informative

With XP, almost all of the crashes are due to bad (usually non-MS) device drivers. If you run a system with pure MS drivers and quality hardware you'll never see a BSOD.

I just had XP not merely BSOD, but destroy itself so it wouldn't boot any more, after I installed a set of Microsoft security updates.

It was using no 3rd party drivers, and it wasn't a hardware problem because I was running it under VMware and other Windows images continued to run just fine.

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Re:Yes, you can use hardware to track down bugs... by UnknowingFool · 2006-10-09 03:09 · Score: 1

It's the crappy hardware and badly written drivers that cause the crashes. That's the difference with Apple.... since they control the hardware there's less crashes due to bad hardware and there are fewer third-party drivers for Mac hardware. The software is probably the same quality.

One thing that Apple did when they changed to OS X was to revise the API. Overall they reduced the number of API calls from like 9,000 to 6,000. For legacy systems, Apple created an emulation environment. Apple did sacrifice some compatibility but in the long term, it was the right thing to do.

The Win32 API unfortunately has only gotten larger with each new version as MS had decided to make backwards compatibility more of a priority than other goals. I think there are some 40,000 documented API calls. Then there are the undocumented ones. At some point MS has to clean up their API and deprecate some of them. At this point it will be very painful and legacy systems will not work. I'm not sure if Vista is headed in that direction.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Yes, you can use hardware to track down bugs... by drsmithy · 2006-10-09 04:26 · Score: 1

The Win32 API unfortunately has only gotten larger with each new version as MS had decided to make backwards compatibility more of a priority than other goals. I think there are some 40,000 documented API calls. Then there are the undocumented ones. At some point MS has to clean up their API and deprecate some of them. At this point it will be very painful and legacy systems will not work. I'm not sure if Vista is headed in that direction.
What do you think .Net is ?
Re:Yes, you can use hardware to track down bugs... by jam244 · 2006-10-09 05:41 · Score: 1

Did you install VMWare Tools? Then you were most certainly using third-party drivers. Furthermore, the Windows install CD comes with dozens, if not hundreds of third-party drivers for all sorts of peripherals. Doubtful you can even install XP without any third-party drivers.
Re:Yes, you can use hardware to track down bugs... by potHead42 · 2006-10-09 05:51 · Score: 1

What do you think .Net is ?
Well, first, you do realize that most of the .NET framework is just a wrapper around the Win32 API? And second, Microsoft itself still hasn't written any big application in .NET, although they initially said Vista would be rewritten almost entirely in it (i.e., at least the userland).
Re:Yes, you can use hardware to track down bugs... by metamatic · 2006-10-09 06:07 · Score: 1

Doubtful you can even install XP without any third-party drivers.

So basically, XP is perfectly reliable in some theoretical sense, but not if you actually use it?

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Re:Yes, you can use hardware to track down bugs... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 08:20 · Score: 0

> If you run the usual business suite of software (Office, Outlook, IE) you probably never see an application crash.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Good one!

Sorry, but we run a basic XP + Office setup here at work, and I've seen plenty of applications die. To be fair, most of the BSODs were hardware, although the damn things do occasionally destroy some critical windows files for no apparent reason and bluescreen on startup saying that file xyz is unreadable and the system cannot boot. I'm not sure if those are bad sectors or not, because I've formatted and reinstalled those buggers a few times and had them work again, although that could be due to the drive silently remapping sectors to its spare capacity areas.
Re:Yes, you can use hardware to track down bugs... by devnull17 · 2006-10-10 07:52 · Score: 1

I'm a developer by trade, using almost exclusively Microsoft products. (Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm evil, greedy and stupid.) I know Windows fairly well.

I agree with the OP. It's very, very rare to see Microsoft stuff crash. I mean, it's not perfect by any means, but it has to have been at least a year since I last saw a BSOD. Same thing with Office. Don't get me wrong--it's bloated, overfeatured, and generally a pain in the ass to use--but I can't remember the last time an Office application outright died on me.

On the rare occasions that bad stuff does happen, it's seldom (directly) Microsoft's fault--bad hardware and bad third-party drivers are the most frequent culprits. You could argue that Microsoft should take a more proactive stance in keeping bad drivers from running and such, but they have their certification program, and anything more restrictive would be bad for those of us who like being able to run homebrew stuff without having to get it certified.

As for "quality" drivers, Microsoft doesn't make them directly, but I guarantee you that they stay in close contact with driver programmers at places like ATI and nVidia, and provide loads of developer support and source code access.

I don't know enough about security to say anything on that side of the issue, other than that Firefox appears to be just as vulnerable, and has mostly been protected thus far by a cloak of obscurity that is sure to fade as its marketshare grows. Unfortunately, Firefox sucks slightly less than IE, and we're all stuck with it for now. But I digress...

Phase 2 by Dachannien · 2006-10-09 00:13 · Score: 1

This is where special software automatically exercises programs rapidly while looking for errors.

Maybe they should try hooking WGA up to this thing.

so it's like my Tivo by way2trivial · 2006-10-09 00:20 · Score: 1

which I can't replace as I can't see paying a monthly fee.

p.s. my TIVO, a LINUX device, freezes now 2 or 3 times a month.. I have to switch it off (unplug it actually) and gosh yes, wait a minute (*5 or 6 actually) to resume my normal broadcast day.

--
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random

Re:so it's like my Tivo by Antique+Geekmeister · 2006-10-09 00:56 · Score: 2, Informative

That sounds like a thermal problem. Have you tried opening the case and cleaning the air vents, and making sure the fans are all working properly?
Re:so it's like my Tivo by mackyrae · 2006-10-09 03:01 · Score: 1

The Nintendo Effect!

Remember having to yank out the game and blow on the bottom of it to cool it down so you could play after it overheated?

--
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux

Why try, and fail to, reinvent the wheel... by rsidd · 2006-10-09 00:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

Microsoft wanted a more reliable machine, improved memory management, a better filesystem, etc... Instead of throwing resources at doing these things from scratch, why didn't they just

Take Linux, or one of the BSDs (like Apple did)
Spend small amounts of money improving it (all that's really needed is improved device drivers)
Spend some money on improving Wine (it would be really easy for them, compared to anyone else who wants to do it), et voila -- near-perfect backward compatibility (certainly far better than Apple's MacOS 9 -> MacOS X or PowerPC->Intel moves)

From every point of view it seems to make more sense. They spend less money, get a more reliable product that can run very nicely on existing hardware, get some good press for a change, and benefit from the work of unpaid open-source programmers all over the world. But it isn't their way.

Re:Why try, and fail to, reinvent the wheel... by drsmithy · 2006-10-09 00:43 · Score: 1

Microsoft wanted a more reliable machine, improved memory management, a better filesystem, etc... Instead of throwing resources at doing these things from scratch, why didn't they just
Because there is zero benefit to them in doing so.
Re:Why try, and fail to, reinvent the wheel... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 01:03 · Score: 0

Because Windows NT is based on VMS, which is significantly superior to UNIX. This is why Windows NT had fully functional threading before POSIX had a standard for it, and long before Linux could do it at all. The underlying core of Windows is just fine. NTFS is a very good file system, and with Vista is now one of the very few elite journaled AND transactional file systems. Deleting a file, appending to another file, modifying a registry key and inserting a record into an Oracle database can now be a single atomic operation, either entirely succeeding or entirely failing. Other that OS/400, I'm not aware of a single other filesystem like that.

The driver system has been changing in every iteration, but there is a reason: Microsoft is moving Windows NT back towards it's microkernel roots. The audio stack is now entirely user mode. 90% of video drivers are now user mode. User mode drivers eliminates the last bastion of BSODs and the ultimate hiding ground for root kits. Vista represents a major step forward in that respect.

And why would MS need to improve WINE? They have the actual Win16/32 source, no need to write an emulator for it. Frankly, those who don't understand Windows are doomed to repeat it while mistaking UNIX as superior, which, sorry, it ain't. fork() is a vestage of a dead past.
Re:Why try, and fail to, reinvent the wheel... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 01:53 · Score: 0

You do know that MS was in such a hurry to implement threads because process creation
and switching in NT is much slower than under a good unix OS, right?
Re:Why try, and fail to, reinvent the wheel... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 02:09 · Score: 0

I'm still looking for programs and applications that really benefit from native threads... still looking... yes, still looking...

NTFS is an average filesystem, reasonable performance but over-complex and (IIRC) relies on some fucked-up b-tree index (AKA: FAT) which is why write support under linux has taken so long. NTFS could be a great FS but once you add dynamic swap space and temporary files to a single boot partition then any file system is going to suck. NTFS also stores the SID in metadata, which has always amused me greatly when mounting NTFS partitions for recovery -- b l e h!

The remainder of your comment is equally asinine, so much so that I can't even be bothered addressing it.
Re:Why try, and fail to, reinvent the wheel... by I'm+Don+Giovanni · 2006-10-09 02:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

yeah, because *every* OS must be unix-based because it's perfect in every way, can't be improved. The peak of OS tech was achieved 30 years ago. [face_rollseyes]

As for Apple, I wish that they had succeeded with Copeland, so there would still be at least one mainstream OS that wasn't Unix or NT based. Apple chose NexT (the BSD version (there was also an NT version)) out of desperation, not because they so loved BSD or Unix.

--
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Re:Why try, and fail to, reinvent the wheel... by SEMW · 2006-10-09 02:38 · Score: 1

>Spend some money on improving Wine (it would be really easy for them, compared to anyone else who wants to do it), et voila -- near-perfect backward compatibility

I don't think so. It is probably possible (though not easy) to get Wine working with any particular application you choose, though it may take more or less time depending on the development team you have. But to have something that works with *every* application? There are many millions of Windows apps out there, a large percentage of which are privately written and obviously not publicly available for testing. Not to mention all the legacy hardware with device drivers written for Windows. If you implement something general enough to work with everything and anything, you've basically got -- Windows, with maybe a few unrecognisable shreds of Linux buried underneath. And there goes the entire point.

--
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Re:Why try, and fail to, reinvent the wheel... by Chris_Jefferson · 2006-10-09 03:48 · Score: 1

If you knew much about Windows development, you would know that Microsoft spend a HUGE amount of time making sure they don't break popular programs between versions of Windows, and that is based on upgrading a similar code base. Getting wine up to that level would take years, and might not be possible (there are a few "WONTFIX" bugs in Wine due to programs doing horrible things which involve writing all over memory, which would require root access on linux).

--
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
Re:Why try, and fail to, reinvent the wheel... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 03:57 · Score: 0

It isn't so much a question of whether it is unix-based or not, it is more a question of whether it has a solid design. Of the original design goals of WindowsNT, essentially none of them ended up panning out (portable, small, fast, reliable, etc).

Unix succeeded because it had a solid design, even a philosophy behind it. IMO, the fact that it has a design/philosophy is more important than the details of how it actually works.
If Microsoft had stuck to the original design behind NT (especially with respect to security!), and even extended it into a philosophy, the past 10 years could have been quite different.
Re:Why try, and fail to, reinvent the wheel... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 03:57 · Score: 0

Well, we transport things on circular objects called "wheels." That technology has been around a long, long time. Now granted, geometry is a closed system and you more-or-less prove that something is the best, so the example isn't quite fair, but it doesn't necessarily negate the point. Sometimes yes, a local max. is reached. Sometimes it is quite a while before we discover another max.; sometimes it just so happens that our local max. is actually a global max.

In this case you have thousands of small components performing specialized task (UNIX) vs. fewer components performing a broad range of tasks (Windows). Maybe, just maybe, the UNIX way *is* the best for computers as we understand them. Maybe that will change with quantum computing, massively parallel computers, or analog, but for the Von Neumann digital computers of today, segmented design appears to trump all inclusive comprehensive design.
Re:Why try, and fail to, reinvent the wheel... by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2006-10-09 04:09 · Score: 1

Apple was never going to succeed with Copland. Copland was a disjointed mess of technologies. Apple's other choice before NeXT was BeOS, also based on UNIX. Because Apple was desperate for a new OS doesn't mean the fact that they went with a UNIX-based solution was a mistake or something they settled on with reservations. On the contrary, I'm surprised anyone is arguing such given all the open source software that now happily runs on OS X and how open the system really is.

There is something to be said for a system that has stood the test of time, and despite its quirks, UNIX is here to stay. Even the PS3 and the Wii will be running it.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."
Re:Why try, and fail to, reinvent the wheel... by booch · 2006-10-09 05:25 · Score: 1

Because there is zero benefit to them in doing so.

Uh, there's a substantial benefit to them doing so -- a huge cost savings in their Windows development costs.

--
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Re:Why try, and fail to, reinvent the wheel... by drsmithy · 2006-10-09 05:39 · Score: 1

Apple's other choice before NeXT was BeOS, also based on UNIX.
BeOS was not UNIX-based. Heck, BeOS wasn't even multiuser.
Because Apple was desperate for a new OS doesn't mean the fact that they went with a UNIX-based solution was a mistake or something they settled on with reservations. On the contrary, I'm surprised anyone is arguing such given all the open source software that now happily runs on OS X and how open the system really is.
Because releasing Yet Another Unix is a) not particularly interesting technologically, b) surprising from a company infamous for NIH-syndrome and c) a bit lame in todays world.
With that said, OS X doesn't really walk, look or quack like a unix for the vast majority of users and developers (unless they want it to). Apple could quite reasonably have released OS X based on a Windows-NT-derived core (and it was considered) and most users and developers wouldn't be able to tell the difference (although it probably would have had better performance, SMP, memory management, etc - albeit at the price of being at Microsoft's mercy, something Apple probably, understandably, didn't want to do).
Re:Why try, and fail to, reinvent the wheel... by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2006-10-09 06:01 · Score: 1

BeOS was not UNIX-based. Heck, BeOS wasn't even multiuser.

It was most definitely based on and inspired by UNIX.

Because releasing Yet Another Unix is a) not particularly interesting technologically

It's better to ship something that already works then something that some techies might find "interesting."

b) surprising from a company infamous for NIH-syndrome

Steve Jobs was always progressive when it came to UNIX back in the 80s.

a bit lame in todays world.

Again, this statement isn't backed up with anything.

Apple could quite reasonably have released OS X based on a Windows-NT-derived core (and it was considered) and most users and developers wouldn't be able to tell the difference (although it probably would have had better performance, SMP, memory management, etc - albeit at the price of being at Microsoft's mercy, something Apple probably, understandably, didn't want to do).

NT was only considered as a last resort possibility. OS X supports things like SMP far better than NT does.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."
Re:Why try, and fail to, reinvent the wheel... by nasch · 2006-10-09 09:15 · Score: 1

a bit lame in todays world.
A stable, secure, open, easy to use OS is lame? What would not be lame in your opinion?
Re:Why try, and fail to, reinvent the wheel... by drsmithy · 2006-10-09 10:01 · Score: 1

It was most definitely based on and inspired by UNIX.
Rrrrright. So exactly which part of a microkernel-esque, pervasively multithreaded, single-user OS with a C++ API and GUI interface do you think was "based on and inspired by UNIX" ?
Indeed, apart from a certain level of POSIX compliance, what _similarities_ are there between UNIXes and BeOS ?
OS X supports things like SMP far better than NT does.
Rubbish. OS X's SMP support is basic, at best. NT has been running on - and being tuned for - multiprocessor machines far longer than OS X has, and it shows. Heck, it's only with 10.4 that OS X has improved on the equivalent of a single kernel lock.
Being somewhat generous, OS X's SMP capabilities are currently on par with Windows NT 4.0 (or, say, Linux 2.0 or FreeBSD 4.x). OTOH, now that multi-CPU machines are commonplace instead of high-end, it will probably advance to NT's current and immediate future level (Vista) a lot quicker than it took NT (and Linux) to get there.
Re:Why try, and fail to, reinvent the wheel... by triso · 2006-10-10 00:24 · Score: 1

a bit lame in todays world.
A stable, secure, open, easy to use OS is lame? What would not be lame in your opinion?
Well, a constantly changing, security nightmare with a steady stream of patches, closed source, hard-to-program patchwork quilt called Vista is certainly not lame. In fact it is damned exciting--who could fail to succumb to rising blood pressure and cardiac arrhythmia every time new software is deployed on the Internet or on your office machines.
For extra excitement try the malware lottery: What will the next malware found do? Will it be a simple virus,a worm, nasty spyware or a trojan? How will it affect you? Will it trash files, become a zombie, log keystrokes or install a rootkit? Will it be a mashup of any of the above?
Re:Why try, and fail to, reinvent the wheel... by drsmithy · 2006-10-10 15:49 · Score: 1

A stable, secure, open, easy to use OS is lame? What would not be lame in your opinion?
Yet another reimplementation of a thirty year old OS (including its flaws) is 'lame'. Particularly when so much progress has been made since then.
Now, the stuff they've got sitting on top of it, that's pretty cool.
Re:Why try, and fail to, reinvent the wheel... by nasch · 2006-10-11 03:13 · Score: 1

Oh come now, answer my real question! :-) What would not be lame? Does it have to be new to be not lame? Does it have to have particular features, or an absence of certain flaws?
Re:Why try, and fail to, reinvent the wheel... by drsmithy · 2006-10-11 13:45 · Score: 1

Oh come now, answer my real question! :-) What would not be lame? Does it have to be new to be not lame? Does it have to have particular features, or an absence of certain flaws?
It has to be interesting.
UNIX isn't interesting (and I say this as someone whose job involves lots of servers running UNIX and derivatives).
Now, as I said, the stuff sitting on top of it *is* interesting, but the guts - Darwin - are not.
Howeevr, if Apple had gone with, say, BeOS, or stuck their OpenStep update on top of NT, or made Darwin a real microkernel, that would have been more interesting.
Re:Why try, and fail to, reinvent the wheel... by brownca2231 · 2006-10-14 06:59 · Score: 1

your probably like 50 years old aren you... stuck in your old ways forever i see. not saying microsoft is "on the right path" so to speak, but there is always room for improvement, nothing is EVER perfect

Does it mean anything? by rbarreira · 2006-10-09 00:26 · Score: 1

Is that crash data in general, or crash data on Microsoft applications or OS parts? I ask because windows can send crash data for any application which crashes...

--

The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F

So simple maths by stewwy · 2006-10-09 00:27 · Score: 2, Funny

tells us that 450,000/500,000 gives us a crash rate of exactly 90% seems about right for a windows system , can't think why they haven't released it earlier.

Ignorant by rbarreira · 2006-10-09 00:30 · Score: 2, Informative

You're ignorant. From your post, it seems you think that the crashes were OS crashes, which is not true. Most (or all?) of the crash information is about applications crashing, not the whole OS. Any application, not just OS code or Microsoft apps.

It's more akin to you turning on your TV and finding out that your channels suck.

--

The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F

Re:Ignorant by 1337Garda · 2006-10-09 20:50 · Score: 1

You don't understand, that's exactly what I was talking about. Whatever your operating system, application crashes, however rare, would almost inevitably happen at some point. (This is my personal experience.) I have used Windows, Macs and Linux in the past and have never gone weeks or months on end without an application crashing at some point. For me it seems that this number is not an extreme number of crashes, since you would expect this sort of thing to happen. While everyone here seems to be Vista bashing I wanted to actually see if there was somebody who had never experienced even one application in an equivalent space of time as which Vista has been in testing.

What about compatibility? by UnknowingFool · 2006-10-09 00:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

Something that I haven't heard much recently is about Vista compatibility. MS has said before that it will be compatible and for most software and hardware, it was true in previous versions. But there were enough exceptions. ME was supposed to be backwards compatible. But many specialized drivers had to be written for it. XP definitely required some driver updates. Since Vista is a architectural change, so one would except some compatibility issues especially when DRM and enhanced security is thrown into the mix.

Technically would MS classify incompatibility as not a a bug, especially if is does not cause a crash?

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

Re:What about compatibility? by triso · 2006-10-10 00:40 · Score: 1

Technically would MS classify incompatibility as not a a bug, especially if is does not cause a crash?
I was under the impression that MS did not have bugs but they have issues, anomalies and features. Weasels!

Critical Path sunglasses by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 00:35 · Score: 1, Insightful

One team I was on had a pair of "critical path sunglasses", whoever was on the critical path got to keep them, the joke being they wouldnt see daylight for so long their eyeballs would suffer when they did go outside -hence the sunglasses.

This meeting looks like a triage session to me: someone goes through the list of bugs, dividing them up into ones to focus on, and which to ignore. Triage has always been a microsof strength: making the decisions as to exactly how buggy something can be and yet still ship successfully.

There's one person with a keyboard (probably hooked to a real vista pc),the foreground laptop is running outlook on what looks rather suspiciously like WinXP (that or vista without Aero, which is roughly how laptops will run it anyway). There arent enough empty soft drink cans or laptops plugged in to AC power for a long lived meeting. Rooms get messier after about six hours, even with less people in.

Fool them twice, er, um, won't be fooled again! by eyepeepackets · 2006-10-09 00:49 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Most people are not fooled thrice (PHBs excepted) and new crops of folks who have yet to be burned by MS' business ethics and exceptionally bloated software products are shrinking rapidly -- MS is running out of suckers. Which explains much about MS's Playstation and iPod knockoffs: At least MS knows their con is running out of conees in the PC software racket.

New product lines we might see from MS in the near future:

- Pointy, singing tin-foil hats stamped with "PHBs Rule!" and an image of Dilbert's boss -- with ads for sale to the highest bidder
- Lapel pins which sing out screechy fortunes -- with ads for sale to the highest bidder
- Singing tires for your automobile -- with ads for sale to the highest bidder
- Singing Toilet paper -- with ads for sale to the highest bidder (I might buy this one, hmm.)

The list is endless, the point is made, I'm outta here.

Happy Monday to all.

--
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!

Here we go by CxDoo · 2006-10-09 01:01 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Cue in:

1) Windows is extremely unstable and it BSODs every an hour or so. You have to reinstall it every month, there is no other way around it. Me, I switched over to Linux in 1997 and never looked back.

2) Windows administration is royal PITA; you can't do jack shit and everything is so confusing and convoluted. Every time I have to touch a Windoze box (once in three months or so) I feel so frustrated. Me, I don't run Windows anywhere.

3) NT is a dead end OS, it's inherently flawed. They should switch over to Linux/BSD/Whatever like Apple did. I mean, if Apple could do it, why Microsoft can't?

4) Why is Office so important? OO is getting better. And there is GIMP, yeah.

--
"Blah blah blah." - [citation needed]

Re:Here we go by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 02:11 · Score: 0

"1) Windows is extremely unstable and it BSODs every an hour or so. You have to reinstall it every month, there is no other way around it" - by CxDoo (918501) on Monday October 09, @09:01AM (#16363007)

"2) Windows administration is royal PITA; you can't do jack shit and everything is so confusing and convoluted." - by CxDoo (918501) on Monday October 09, @09:01AM (#16363007)

To both of your points:

If you're an incompetent with computers? This makes total sense. Otherwise, you are just another Linux Penguin who realized once he got out of academia that the world is run on Windows based computers mostly, and you spent your time unwisely.
Re:Here we go by CxDoo · 2006-10-09 03:08 · Score: 1

You be here -> . (#16363681)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sarcasm be here -> . (#16363007)

--
"Blah blah blah." - [citation needed]

high crash rate by 192939495969798999 · 2006-10-09 01:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

more than half a million installed, and 450,000 sent back crash data... so even if we assume it was nearly a million, that's 50% crash rate. I'd guess it was way higher even than that. So, over half of the systems were crashing bad enough for Microsoft to care? Wow! What exactly is the problem? I thought this was supposed to be a newer, better version. Wouldn't we see a 10% crash rate, or even a 25% crash rate at this point if things were really getting any better?

--
stuff |

Re:high crash rate by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 01:29 · Score: 0

I would guess that most of those crashes are application crashes. Microsoft wants to determine if these crashes are a result of the OS or just a buggy program.
Re:high crash rate by theiceweasel · 2006-10-09 03:50 · Score: 1

I'm one of those who had Beta 2 installed at home and now have RC1 installed. Beta 2 had a ton of bugs in it that caused it to crash frequently and on a few occasions leave the computer in such a state that the only option I had was to do a Complete Recovery or re-install from the DVD. RC1 is way more stable, the only times it's crashed for is from having to install drivers ment for XP since new ones hadn't been created yet. I have had a number of 3rd party apps crash in Vista but I found changing them to use XP SP2 Compatibility settings fixed most of the issues I was having.

Classic Microsoft by sethwm2 · 2006-10-09 01:06 · Score: 0

This is something that Microsoft likes to do a lot. Wait to fix things after it is out. Microsoft loves to do everything at the last second. As someone elce was saying look at what happened to Windows ME! It took them this long to release Vista yet this thing sounds like it has not been tested at all. I am thinking that there will be major updates after it comes out. They should just wait for two more months and let the beta testers keep going at it and see if they can't get ahead of the game? Also I think that if they release updates more often then they do now I think that they could get a little better at patching things. Apple will have an update out winthin a week of the problem being found. Anyone who uses NOD32 knows how often that updates By itself might I add. That is how often Micosoft should patch. It should be seemless and no restart required. One of the main reasions I do not use only Windows is becuase of the restarts that are required all the time. Linux never has to reboot unless it is a kernal update and Mac does not take as long as windows to start so I do not mind much. In conclusion the success of this version of windows will hang in the ballance of security and compatibility.

Re:Classic Microsoft by I'm+Don+Giovanni · 2006-10-09 02:45 · Score: 1

This is something that Microsoft likes to do a lot. Wait to fix things after it is out.

You accuse MS of this but go on to praise Apple. Are you forgetting that Apple released what was essentially betaware as the RTM build of OSX 10.0?

And how about a more recent example: iTunes 7.0 was so buggy when it was released that Apple had to release iTunes 7.0.1 within a week. And it's still buggy as hell.

--
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Re:Classic Microsoft by sethwm2 · 2006-10-09 03:55 · Score: 0

A couple things wrong with OS 10 not as many at XP. Vista will most likely have more issues. I say this looking at Microsofts track record

High failure rate by DigitAl56K · 2006-10-09 01:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

"More than half a million computer users have installed Vista test software, and 450,000 of the systems have sent crash data back to Microsoft"

So the liklihood of a crash is near 100% ?

Big bang testing by plopez · 2006-10-09 01:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sounds like typical end of project 'big bang' testing. All those issues they ignored in development? Let's fix them now and fast! I would hate to be the MS QA person.

(Yes I am aware I used singular, it was a joke, OK?)

--
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+

Vista SP1 - should be stable by then by SpecialAgentXXX · 2006-10-09 01:39 · Score: 1

Waiting for SP2 will take around 2 years after Vista is released. Assuming an early '07 launch, SP1 should be out by the end of '07. By then, both Microsoft and other hardware vendors should have their bugs & drivers worked out. For XP, I waited until SP1a and it worked fine.

It's funny, though, that neither you nor I nor a lot of other /.'ers would even touch a brand new release of Windows. I just see it as moving from 500,000 beta-testers to 50,000,000 beta-testers.

Re:Vista SP1 - should be stable by then by mackyrae · 2006-10-09 03:10 · Score: 1

We're just all nerdy enough to know better. Average Joe goes "oooohhhh it's new! I want it!" (or Average Joe Jr.) without noting that "hey...this was a pile of poo a month ago...do I really think they got it all straightened out already?"

--
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
Re:Vista SP1 - should be stable by then by drsmithy · 2006-10-09 04:22 · Score: 1

It's funny, though, that neither you nor I nor a lot of other /.'ers would even touch a brand new release of Windows. I just see it as moving from 500,000 beta-testers to 50,000,000 beta-testers.
On the contrary, I've used every version of Windows NT (except Vista[0]) as my full-time desktop OS since late in its beta cycle.
NT4's beta 2 was the OS that got me off OS/2, with better performance, stability and software support.
Windows 2000 never gave me any trouble from the RCs onwards.
XP was fine from the RCs (although its changes over 2000 were minimal, so that's hardly surprising).
Windows 2003 was a distinct improvement in performance and stability over XP.
I have *never* had a significant problem doing this. Indeed, I could probably count the total number of BSODs my desktop PCs have had since early 1996 on two hands and still have some fingers left over (take out the ones that were caused by hardware failures, and the count might even fit on one hand).
[0] I haven't really bothered with Vista because Windows 2003 has been serving me so well. However, having started to delve into the Vista waters with the RCs, it seems to me to be following the pattern I have become used to - usable in the late beta to RC phase. The biggest problem I've bumped into thus far is finding some CD writing and ISO-mounting tools that work (and given the level of internal changes, I'm willing to be understanding about that).
Re:Vista SP1 - should be stable by then by SpecialAgentXXX · 2006-10-09 04:58 · Score: 1

I haven't really bothered with Vista because Windows 2003 has been serving me so well.
I'm looking forward to Vista for all the HD multimedia stuff. That's the reason I upgraded from 2000 to XP. Windows 2003 seems to me to be a server / developer deskop.

not great odds... by urdine · 2006-10-09 01:47 · Score: 1

"More than half a million computer users have installed Vista test software, and 450,000 of the systems have sent crash data back to Microsoft."

...and the other 50,000 uninstalled before it could crash. Seriously, why would you install this before 2009? Or at all?

Has anyone considered... by Builder · 2006-10-09 02:01 · Score: 1

Has anyone considered that MS is actually trying to make a decent OS here? Sure, it's fun to poke fun at them for all the crashes and bugs, but isn't that the ENTIRE point of the 'release early, release often' mindset?

At least they're trying to find their bugs, at least they are running a widespread beta.

Re:Has anyone considered... by mackyrae · 2006-10-09 03:18 · Score: 1

5 years since XP....that's "release often"? Eh? I'll stick to my every-6-months Ubuntu.

--
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
Re:Has anyone considered... by Tropper · 2006-10-09 13:54 · Score: 1

Well, I hope, otherwise it would be a waste of time. As long its not like WinMe which crashed all the time for no reason. I think the widespeard is a good move for MS but also its sort of like a "try before you buy" thing. The only real problem vistia it a dam resoruce hog.

Vista BitTorrent by PopeRatzo · 2006-10-09 02:14 · Score: 1

As usual with microsoft products, I will wait for an integrated, WGA-disabled version to arrive via BitTorrent before putting any thought into actually getting it.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Cue all the fuckwits who have to put in their 2c by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 02:16 · Score: 0

N/T

I don't think 450k crash reports is the problem... by sarhento_lobo · 2006-10-09 02:28 · Score: 1

... but rather, fixing (or finding) the causes of these crashes are. Even if you assume pessimistically that every 45 crashes are cause by one bug/issue, that's still... 10,000 issues. Onward to January 2007!

I do. by jotaeleemeese · 2006-10-09 02:30 · Score: 1

Fedorec Core 4, Ubuntu 6.

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

BSD maybe. IT is the OS of choifce ot the leeches. by jotaeleemeese · 2006-10-09 02:32 · Score: 1

But not Linux, because then they would have to give back to the community.

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

Excuse me... by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2006-10-09 02:39 · Score: 0

...but I just wanted check we're talking about the same Microsoft here.

This is THE Microsoft, right? The one who breaks CSS support for IE, refuses to use pdf or odf, and once upon a time, whenever you searched "slashdot" on their search engine, fed you a story about possible Linux viruses as the first result?

Poor naive rsidd.

--
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.

My RC2 Experience by funk_master_db · 2006-10-09 02:41 · Score: 0

For the fun of it (I know I'm a sadist) I downloaded and installed RC2 on my home machine to give it a whirl. Overall it's much slower than XP (my machine is a AMD64 2.2 Ghz with 2GB of RAM) and it has an annoying habit of hanging when it goes to reboot. For example, you install an updated video driver, it asks you to reboot and it tries to, but then the screen goes blank and just sits there. Hitting the reset button is about the only thing to get it to reboot at that point. I just don't see how Vista will be a viable OS anytime soon -- until MS pushes by stopping support of XP in a few years.

Alternate wording by The+Cisco+Kid · 2006-10-09 02:41 · Score: 1

"... half a million computer users have installed Vista test software, and 450,000 of the systems have sent crash data ..."

or, "Half a million installs of Vista, and almost half a million have crashed"

Haste makes waste. by dpbsmith · 2006-10-09 02:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Rushing to fix bugs" is like rushing any other meticulous job. It can't be done.

Bugs are the consequence of rushing the job in the first place. (Taking time, is of course, necessary but not sufficient).

If Microsoft knows a way to "rush" bug fixes without compromising quality, they would have been able to "rush" their development without creating the bugs in the first place.

--

"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!

Re:Haste makes waste. by Keeper · 2006-10-09 05:51 · Score: 1

Bugs are the result of programmers being human. Get over it.
Re:Haste makes waste. by daverabbitz · 2006-10-09 10:42 · Score: 1

Bugs are the result of humans designing things wrong, or being slack.

That being said, (not all) humans will always design things wrong and be slack.

--
What could be better than a jet powered motorcycle? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8l6GTHLSWE
Re:Haste makes waste. by Keeper · 2006-10-09 12:31 · Score: 1

Bullshit. Show me someone who claims they're perfect, and I'll either show you they are either God or a liar.
Re:Haste makes waste. by daverabbitz · 2006-10-10 14:03 · Score: 1

I never said anyone was perfect. I said that someone who wasn't perfect could still write perfect code, if he designed it well and payed attention to detail.

--
What could be better than a jet powered motorcycle? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8l6GTHLSWE
Re:Haste makes waste. by Keeper · 2006-10-10 14:25 · Score: 1

Hello World maybe. Your supposition depends on the human brain to always evaluate complex logical conditions correctly, 100% of the time. That doesn't happen in the real world.

Vague Statistic by businessnerd · 2006-10-09 03:10 · Score: 1

"More than half a million computer users have installed Vista test software, and 450,000 of the systems have sent crash data back to Microsoft."

The problem with this statistic is that it is almost meaningless without more information. No real conclusion can be drawn. This could mean a number of different things. For instance:

* Vista could have one bug (and only one) that all of the systems encountered and successfully reported

* Same as above, but the conclusion drawn is that Vista 5ux0rz cause it has a huge bug

* Vista has 450,000 different bugs, each system reporting a different bug

* One system crashed 450,000 times and reported each time and the facts were skewed into calling each report a unique system.

The possibilites are endless. Journalists really need to start providing statistics that actually add value to the article rather than adding more mud (or FUD?) to the water.

--
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson

Holy crappy similes batman! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 03:24 · Score: 0

"Its like the circle of life."

Dude, you need to go re-watch the Lion King...

Re:No wonder! by mackyrae · 2006-10-09 03:24 · Score: 1

It would've been really funny if the laptop you can see in front was either a Mac (which'd be too obvious to get into the room) or running Linux (which'd still look like a non-Mac PC).

--
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux

Re:No wonder! by hey! · 2006-10-09 03:26 · Score: 1

And, however much the software engineering world is predominantly male, why is there only 1 lady in the room?

We don't know there was "only one" lady in the room. We can only be sure that (a) there is at most one lady in the room and (b) that there is exactly one woman in the room. This is assuming the photographer is male.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

An Oxymoron for the Ages... by eRondeau · 2006-10-09 04:31 · Score: 1

So Mario Garzia is Microsoft's "Director of Windows Reliability". Now there's an oxymoron for the ages. Hey Mario, you're fired!

NYT says Office 07 will always be flawed by Edzor · 2006-10-09 04:34 · Score: 1

"The chart indicates a decline in Office 2007 flaws from the start of 2006 through last week"

since the graph can never be y=0, is the NYT implying that Office 2007 will always be flawed? :O im shocked!

Code signing certificates are expensive by tepples · 2006-10-09 05:31 · Score: 1

If it's a third-party application, you might get a message like "An analyst at Microsoft has investigated this problem and determined that an unkown error occurred in Adobe Acrobat Reader / Adobe Reader. This software was created by Adobe Systems Incorporated.", along with a link to the appropriate product support page on Adobe's website.

Doesn't this require the third-party application's developer to have signed the application's code using a VeriSign code signing certificate? At 499 USD per year plus whatever your state charges for incorporating, I'd imagine that such a certificate is too expensive for many hobbyist developers of freeware and shareware to purchase and renew.

Re:Code signing certificates are expensive by Gabe+at+Microsoft · 2006-10-09 08:58 · Score: 1

The code doesn't need to be signed in order for the developer to get crash reports, but they do have to have a Verisign Class 3 cert in order to access data on their apps. This is to ensure that only one company can claim to be "Adobe" or "Blizzard" since Class 3 certs can only be issued in a given company's name once.
Re:Code signing certificates are expensive by tepples · 2006-10-09 12:29 · Score: 1

The code doesn't need to be signed in order for the developer to get crash reports, but they do have to have a Verisign Class 3 cert in order to access data on their apps.

Even so, how can a hobbyist who develops freeware or low-volume shareware afford both a Class 3 cert and the incorporation papers that VeriSign demands before issuing a Class 3 cert?
Re:Code signing certificates are expensive by Gabe+at+Microsoft · 2006-10-09 15:41 · Score: 1

Yes, you're correct - this is a hurdle for freeware, low-volume, and hobbyist developers. There is a team here that is working on making this more accessible to more software developers over time, and they will need to tackle this in order to reach that broader community. Their focus for the past few years has been on getting the large vendors, whose problems affect the largest % of customers, to focus on fixing the problems in their applications. They are making excellent progress on this, and hopefully you have seen responses to reports sent on crashes in 3rd party apps or drivers. This will continue as they work to make crash data more accessible and actionable to developers of all sizes.

Re:I don't think 450k crash reports is the problem by Gabe+at+Microsoft · 2006-10-09 09:20 · Score: 1

I used to run the Windows Feedback team which built crash reporting into Windows XP (if you don't like "send error reports" you can blame me :-) There are 2 things that people should know to put the 450K reporting systems into clearer perspective: 1.) Crash reports typically form a clear and very steep pareto curve. In fact, the top 1% of problems on XP accounted for over half of the reports. In other words; in general people tend to hit the same issues. This makes sense from a common sense perspective as well; one would expect a defect in a common code path in a popular application to be encountered more frequently than uncommon code paths in unpopular applications. It also means that emphasis can be placed on fixing *the most important* issues for the majority of customers and working down the curve to cover as much breadth as possible. 2.) The way crash reporting works is that it handles any unhandled exception which results in an app crash, or any kernel bugcheck. This means that 3rd party applications and drivers are reported as well as crashes in the OS and MS applications. When last I worked on this, there were over 6 million unique .exes reported and more than 95% of the reports by volume were in 3rd party code paths. I expect that distribution is a little more skewed towards MS code over the Vista development cycle since it was under devel, but my bet is that it is still predominantly 3rd party. At the end of the day, the way that I hope people look at this is that it is better to have data about problems and act upon it, than to not collect the data. 450K Vista systems reporting errors means that the Vista team and 3rd party app/driver developers have had the data and opportunity to act upon it. This is a good thing.

Windows Vista - Yes Please by Xamedes · 2006-10-10 02:41 · Score: 0

Seriously - then best thing with vista is the new framework .net 3.0. I ' ve tried Windows Workflow Foundation - they have really improved many things. so i'm looking forward to vista

Slashdot Mirror

Big Challenges for Vista Bug Hunters

213 comments