«

[rlbell]

Originally posted by Blood-Pigggy+Jan 21 2006, 02:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Blood-Pigggy @ Jan 21 2006, 02:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Playbahnosh@Jan 20 2006, 09:18 PM

But I know that microsoft can do better than this. They release crap after crap knowing that they got the monopoly so people will buy any sh!t they can throw. And THIS is the sad thing. I know wrinting an OS is hard...etc, but how much harder could it be to write it good I ask? Some minor bugs are tolerable, but EVERY single windows has major errors and pathetic bugs in it. They use the same STOLEN base code in every single OS they release. Did you know Bill STOLE the base of windows and released it as his own? That doesn't make it right what I do, I know, but if they can write an OS, why don't they care about what they release?

I agree 100% with that.
I acknowledge the fact that some people are working hard and long to make OS, but how Microsoft can decide to ship without correcting obvious mistakes is stupid.

That is one of the biggest problems in this industry, developers aren't given enough time, just so the publisher can get it out the door and make cash fast. [/b][/quote]
There are issues, and there are issues. An unknown (and unknowable) number of bugs in Windows and every other OS are the result of the work of Dykstra (sp?), who wondered what would happen if you created a non-deterministic computing model (you won't know what a program does before you run it). Part of the answer is that you can never know if it is completely debugged. On the other hand, you also get dynamically allocated memory and recursive programming methods, so it is unlikely that bug-free, multi-threaded operating systems were ever on the cards, if we refuse to run potentially buggy software.

Peculiar to Windows is the problem that if MS ever comes up with reasonably reliable set of features that satisfies their customer base, they have made their last sale. The largest competitor to the latest Windows upgrade is their pre-existing software base. To get people to buy the next version of Windows, the new version must add some new feature that the previous version lacked while still leaving the customer with a vague feeling of dissatisfaction that is not great enough to get them to migrate. You have never been satisfied by Windows, because it is not in Microsoft's best interests for you to ever be happy with it, just happier with this version than the last one.

Windows is plagued by the problems of adding the feature, without caring about how that feature could be exploited. You cannot design a feature and then add security to it. Especially if execution performance is important. Microsoft does not deliberately design their software to be vulnerable to hackers, it is just the only way to make it run at an acceptable speed. Active X is much faster than Java, but the java virtual machine tries to keep malicious code from untrusted sources (read everywhere else) from running amok in your hardware, but the emulation layer slows everything down. Active X is forced, by design, to trust everybody.

Security-wise, Windows suffers from never being originally designed to network. Networking was added afterwards. Linux was inspired byUnix, which was developed to control a distributed computer system that could be accessed from anywhere by anyone (the phone network), so security was the first thing on the mind of its designers. If unix-like operating systems appear to be less user-friendly and flexible it is because security-compromising features were left out.

You can design software to be bug free. It has been done for at least one nuclear power station. However, the bug-free nature comes at a price, software flexibility and power.