[Am-info] query about MS "Innovations"

[Geoffrey]

John Poltorak wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 09:43:11AM -0500, Sujal Shah wrote:
> 
>>On Fri, 2002-03-29 at 09:39, Geoffrey wrote:
>>
>>>Sujal Shah wrote:
>>>
>>[SNIP]
>>
>>>Not to mention the whole issue of a product failing (windows crash) and 
>>>being a perfectly acceptable product attribute.  Point is, if your car 
>>>stops in the middle of the road, you take it to the shop and they (in 
>>>most cases) correct problem.  Sure, sometimes they'll not be able to 
>>>find anything and send you on your way.  But if it happens again over 
>>>the life of the vehicle, you're going to take it back and they will fix it.
>>>
>>>
>>Oh, that reminds me.  Another MSFT innovation is getting someone else to
>>burden the cost of supporting your product.  I can't believe that the
>>OEMs are happy being front line support for essentially a whole lot of
>>MSFT software (since not much non-MSFT software actually makes it onto
>>new PCs anymore).
>>
> 
> I think you have hit the nail on the head. This is Microsoft's greatest 
> innovation, outsourcing testing of their software to unsuspecting third 
> parties. It must cut down development costs to a small fraction of the 
> true value.

Actually these are two different issues, but both are valid.  M$ does 
outsource their support of their products (at no cost to themselves that 
I know of) to the OEMs.  This is why I don't buy t-shirts that advertise 
for a particular company.  I'm not going to pay to be someone's free 
advertisement.

AND they also outsource a lot of their testing by giving REAL users beta 
software.  Have you ever seen a version of windows that wasn't patched 
very shortly after it went out?  Why?  Because some unsuspecting user 
found a bug M$ did not.


> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>>Sujal
>>
>>
>>>With windows and other software, crashing and/or locking up has become 
>>>an acceptable and expected attribute of software.  Fire it back up, if 
>>>it works, great.  If it does it again, oh well, as long as it will start 
>>>working again, it's okay.
>>>
>>>
>>>-- 
>>>Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric@3times25.net
>>>
> 
> 


-- 
Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric@3times25.net

I didn't have to buy my radio from a specific company to listen
to FM, why doesn't that apply to the Internet (anymore...)?