Skip to comments.
Microsoft criticises third party code for Windows crashes
ZDNet Australia ^
| 2003/08/13
| Brendon Chase
Posted on 08/14/2003 8:01:33 AM PDT by TechJunkYard
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
So... only half of Windows crashes are caused by Microsoft code.
Then again, depending on the meaning of the word "crash" of course, considering that operating systems should not actually allow applications to "crash" them, maybe all of the "crashes" are the fault of Microsoft code?
To: TechJunkYard
"This traffic bridge on Main Street was not built for SUVs!!"
To: Nick Danger; Dominic Harr; Bush2000
pathetic microshaft excuses bump
To: TechJunkYard
considering that operating systems should not actually allow applications to "crash" themIt's hard enough to idiot-proof a computer program so people clicking on the GUI interface can't screw it up if they do something really dumb--can you imagine how hard it would be to accomplish idiot-proofing an OS from applications that interact with it in a much more complicated manner? In any case, the vast majority of the time a program crashes on me, it doesn't crash my computer.
4
posted on
08/14/2003 8:04:16 AM PDT
by
xm177e2
(Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
To: TechJunkYard
A little early in the morning for proselytizing, isn't it?
To: TechJunkYard
Anything not to accept blame for their own mess...
6
posted on
08/14/2003 8:07:11 AM PDT
by
mhking
To: danneskjold
What? It's almost lunch time on the east coast!
7
posted on
08/14/2003 8:07:13 AM PDT
by
TechJunkYard
(because... so much is riding on your wires)
To: TechJunkYard
I don't understand how an OS can prevent a program from crashing. I have a number of third party programs that misbehave, but it's been ages since I've had to reboot Win2000 or XP due to a software problem.
8
posted on
08/14/2003 8:07:45 AM PDT
by
js1138
To: TechJunkYard
It has the Microsoft Logo on it, therefore it is a Microsoft problem.
To: TechJunkYard
So you think that it would be theoretically possible to build a usefull OS that is incapable of being crashed ?
10
posted on
08/14/2003 8:09:10 AM PDT
by
RS
(nc)
To: TechJunkYard
I don't know why it is, but I never seem to experience the problems with Windows that others complain about ... not only in home use, but with the servers I manage at work. Maybe it's because I'm really picky about the number and kind of services I allow to run on the system. My rule of thumb is that if you don't need it running in the background, don't start it until it's needed.
To: js1138
Win2k is far more robust than 95-98-ME. They (mostly) fixed a problem that UNIX fixed 20 years earlier.
To: TechJunkYard
Microsoft has laid the blame for half of all Windows crashes on third-party code. Now that is some spin. As you pointed out, looking at it the other way shows that Microsoft code is responsible for half of Windows crashes. If I had ever thought about it before, I would have expected a much lower (Micorosoft) percentage than 50%..
13
posted on
08/14/2003 8:10:44 AM PDT
by
kevkrom
(This tag line for rent)
To: js1138
I don't understand how an OS can prevent a program from crashing.It can't. That's the app's fault. But the OS can and should prevent a rougue app from taking the whole system down with it.
And I have seen this happen with Win2000.
14
posted on
08/14/2003 8:10:53 AM PDT
by
TechJunkYard
(because... so much is riding on your wires)
To: TechJunkYard
Laughable.
15
posted on
08/14/2003 8:10:58 AM PDT
by
Hans
To: js1138
I don't understand how an OS can prevent a program from crashing.An OS can't prevent that, of course. In fact, Microsoft has included several features in the OS that many developers don't use. So many problems in user space would be solved if people used smarter memory management techniques and installed unhandled exception handlers, all very straightforward, if not downright easy.
16
posted on
08/14/2003 8:10:59 AM PDT
by
krb
(the statement on the other side of this tagline is false)
To: RS
So you think that it would be theoretically possible to build a usefull OS that is incapable of being crashed ? <sarcasm>Sure...and you could name it Utopia...</sarcasm>
To: RS
So you think that it would be theoretically possible to build a usefull OS that is incapable of being crashed ? Yup... it's been done. OS/370, OS/390, OS/400. They don't crash unless the system operator wants them to crash.
18
posted on
08/14/2003 8:14:03 AM PDT
by
TechJunkYard
(because... so much is riding on your wires)
To: TechJunkYard
Microsoft should consider that it is because of that third-party code that most people buy their product. If all there was to run on Windows was Microsoft products, who would want to spend money for that?
To: TechJunkYard
Half? It's way more than half. Probably upwards of 95% or more. I actually can't think of the last time I've had a virgin install of Windows, running purely MS products, crash. Neither my NT domain server, Exchange server nor SQL server ever crash. As a matter of fact, I should probably re-boot that SQL server sometime this year.
On the other hand my gamming machine crashes once or twice a week but considering how I have the FSB and Radeon 9700 overclocked, I'm practically begging for it to lock up. Mostly, I'm just surprised it isn't actually on fire.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson