[dba-Tech] Now why is not Windows written to this standard?

Jim Lawrence accessd at shaw.ca
Fri May 21 11:21:40 CDT 2010


I agree with much of what you say but there be more to it than that. 

First, unlike the shuttle craft software that runs on but a few systems,
just Windows7 alone runs on 90,000,000 million computers... If the cost of
developing Windows tripled the cost to the consumer would be marginal almost
to the point of imperceptible. 

Second, support of MS products and fixing Windows errors is a major business
and just another revenue stream and as long as the public will tolerate it,
why change things.

Third, being a buggy desktop, Windows (80 plus percent estimated on the
desktop) may be tolerable, where a simple reboot can solve most problems but
when it comes to servers MS has been doing itself no flavours. There is a
reason why Microsoft has been unable to make major in roads with servers.
(In 30 years it owns less than 7 percent, of that market, according to a
2009 survey). The reliability or perceived reliability just is not there.
Servers, like the space shuttle, are mission critical.

The question of course is; can a reliable desktop type product be made?
OpenBSD a flavour of Linux/Unix brags that they have had fewer than a dozen
real bugs in about 15-20 years... BSD is now used as the core to the new
Macs. Ubuntu/Debian Linux product states it has less than 10 percent the
amount of bugs that MS does and fixes them in a quarter of the time. All of
this is of course part fact and part fiction as Microsoft counters with it
own nearly unbelievable statistics. 

Jim



-----Original Message-----
From: dba-tech-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:dba-tech-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of
rockysmolin at bchacc.com
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 8:14 AM
To: dba-tech at databaseadvisors.com
Subject: Re: [dba-Tech] Now why is not Windows written to this standard?

Well there's an obvious answer to your question - I think.  The cost of an
error in the space shuttle is death.  The testing has to be perfect.  The
cost of errors in Windows is lost hair, mostly.  It's not a mission
critical application (for users who do their disk images and/or backups
regularly).

The 80/20 rule says you're going to spend a huge amount of money uncovering
those last few bugs.  Microsoft COULD make Windows error free but it wold
probably cost $3,000 a copy in stead of $300.  You've worked with
government contracts enough to know the routine.

ROcky


Original Message:
-----------------
From: Jim Lawrence accessd at shaw.ca
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 19:07:21 -0700
To: dba-tech at databaseadvisors.com
Subject: [dba-Tech] Now why is not Windows written to this standard?


I received this link and it made me ask the question...Why can not Windows
be written with the same confidence? Does Windows and virtually all other
software for that matter have to have thousands of errors? Is it because
thousands of jobs depend on those errors? 

if MS could even come close to matching a near perfect Desktop, would they
have any concerns from competition? Is there not checking software that if
given time and the right testing scenarios can virtually uncover any bug?
But what do I know?

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/06/writestuff.html?page=0,0

Jim

_______________________________________________
dba-Tech mailing list
dba-Tech at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-tech
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web LIVE - Free email based on MicrosoftR Exchange technology -
http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE



_______________________________________________
dba-Tech mailing list
dba-Tech at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-tech
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com




More information about the dba-Tech mailing list