Windows NT and 2000 bugs...

Are the bugs in windows NT and 200 mostly due to the shear complexity of the windows OS, or just lazyness on microsofts part?

EDITED

Lemmie refrase that, ANY microsft product in general, not just windows

Lack of testing caused by greed, since microsoft likes releasing a new OS ($$!) but not releasing free patches. However, I think 2000 is not so buggy and it is a good OS, even though I don't use it, and would certainly not trust a big server's life to it !

The rush to meet a deadline for a new release is one reason: programming is not easy it's complicated stuff
when there is alot of pressure to get something done without the time to test and you have a boss
and marketing people who want it done yesterday well :( your going to miss things especially
Windows with 50,000,000 lines of code bloat I don't envy someone who has to go through
that pile of spagetti, another reason is sloppy coding how else to explain why they have so
many bufferoverflows?

I think it has to do with the size and complexity of the code.OH-and the fact the M$ sucks.

i dont think its any one thing, its a combination of reasons in all of your posts....except the laziness factor. i dont think any of the programmers for microsoft are truly lazy, they just want money and i think they truly dont care much about security right now. they are excellent programmers they just do not spend years on each product release. ($) it would be nice if their software would show that they are excellent programmers :(

the number one problem with m$ (aside from the fact they want to own the world...)

is that they try to make things too easy...and make their software do too many things...

i don't need word to be a desktop publishing prog or html editor...i've got pagemaker and coldfusion studio for that...

i don't need IIS and telnet installed by default when i install win2k pro...or server for that matter...

in an effort to make things easier on their customers they have succumbed to featuritis...and with that comes code bloat and unforseen vulnerabilities...sure it's nice to have active-x enabled in outlook...for the 1% of people who actually might need it...the rest it's just a big nasty accident waiting to happen...

i would be really interested in a survey of the features of office xp..that people actually use...my guess is about 90% of people could get away with using wordpad and the free version of lotus1-2-3 that is available on the web...

i happen to think that a properly administered windows2000 system is a pretty good piece of work...but to properly administer it requires someone with skill and knowledge...unfortunately...m4 has made it so anyone can can do it...they'll just do it poorly...and expose themselves to all sorts of problems...

remember that 90% of outlook users have not applied a single patch...

i think alot of their problems stem from the fact that they employ some not-so-great coders. one of the prof's at my univ has done a few bits of code for them...i code better than he does.

besides that, the coders arent always given a total picture of what their code fits into. they dont get to look at the bigger picture.

zigar, win2k pro can be pretty secure. and yea telnet and IIS is installed, it is not enabled by default. all the hundreds of remote services available are very nice. you just have to secure your ****.