Microsoft Code Has No Bugs

Quote:

---

h_orion writes "According to Mr. Gates, Microsoft recieves 'Less than one percent' call volume in relation to bugs. He also blames the users lack of knowledge as a cause of some of these bugs. He goes on to say that the feeling of frustration that people hold towards bugs is a sociological issue, rather than technical saying that people complain about software bugs 'Because it's cool.' Read more in this interview." Boy, where do you even begin...

---

http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html <-- the FOCUS Magazine Interview with Bill Gates
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/02/1...id=109&tid=128 <-- where I got the quote from

This was from 1995 and I doubt that Bill would be caught making those kinds of statements today.

Quote:

---

It turns out Luddites don't know how to use software properly, so you should look into that. -- The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy a new version I ever heard. When we do a new version we put in lots of new things that people are asking for. And so, in no sense, is stability a reason to move to a new version. It's never a reason.

---

With statements like this I wonder if this should go in the humor forum.

haha, its not even likely that M$ came out with someting with no bugs

M$ rushes everything they make just so they can have more money, and then even more money when you have to go out and buy a patcg for their stuff up. :D

He said in that interview that no one would buy a piece of software that was just bug fixes, but I thought that's what patches were supposed to be for, to fix a piece of software that you paid for so that it will work properly. I guess they don't think that way at Microsoft. It doesn't even seem like they address the known bugs in their next version, they just add more "features."

At the heart of the issue is MS's need to include 5000 features in a piece of software. Because, as you know, a piece of software that has 5000 features (with only 100 that work properly) is by far better than a piece of software that 200 features(but they all work properly).

Consider to whom they are selling the vast majority of software. These are the same people who think it's a huge difference to pay $2.99 for something rather than $3.00 for the same thing.

they probably get such a high rate of calls that only 1% is about bugs.. (which is probably like ten million) and the others are about blue screens, illegal operations and software questions

Which is the fault of the hardware, NOT, I repeat NOT the problem of the software, right?

If microsoft products dont have bugs, i suppose that would make the WindowsUpdateSite a little dedundant

if thats the case why does IE come with link in the Tools menu to the windows upodate site, and why do they have to release patches to fix bugs that dont exist?

Yea KorpDeath, and I'm sure if you just went out and purchased all new hardware it'll work just fine, I mean, M$ would NEVER think of putting money first over their loved customers. . right? hee hee. .. sorry couldn't even type it with a straight face.

Absolutely, techtech, I couldn't read either of our posts without chuckling.

well the article was from 95 as cwk9 said, back then when windows 3.11 was mainstream, sure it had bugs just not nearly as many as versions of windows that now exsist, different products in different markets, come now give the greedy **** a break

Microsoft claims this crap about no bugs but yet Windoz 9x is based on the MS-DOS operating system which in turn makes the

system unstable (hence the famous blue screen of death). If there are no bugs, then why did the blue screen of death become

so famous? I changed to Linux for the fact that it is stable, cheap and TRULY made for the people. This is my personal

opinion, but I think a community of millions of people working on code can and will make software more stable. Consider this

also, If you run into a supposidly unexisting windoz bug, you can't patch it yourself. With open source, you can go into the

code and change it yourself. Don't get me wrong, Satan Gates... I mean Bill Gates will have the upper hand on operating

systems until Linux is more user friendly for the average user. Until this happens, (or he gets forced to go open source) I will be

forced to have a version of Windoz for some programs I cannot use under Linux. Anyways, I'm getting off my point of Windoz

cannot be bug proof. Just how in the hell can Gates think that million lines of code will be bug proof? That is funny.

I think Bill G. would paraphrase Bill C. in this case...

Quote:

---

It depends on what your definition of bug is...

---