Windows 2000 was released with 20,000 bugs

  • Thread starter Thread starter MicroFox
  • Start date Start date
M

MicroFox

In 2000 a leaked memo from Microsoft obtained by Mary Jo Foley (of
Microsoft-Watch) revealed that Windows 2000 was released with 20,000 bugs
and that Microsoft knowingly released it any way. After this incident,
Microsoft would not speak to Mary Jo Foley for two years regarding projects
and information of any kind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows

Now you guys can do your own estimate of how many bugs vista has,
but they will release it anyway. Remember win2000 is very simple compared to
vista.

This tactic however of "release it anyway" does have its merits... if you
want perfection

nothing ever gets done on time.
 
MicroFox said:
In 2000 a leaked memo from Microsoft obtained by Mary Jo Foley (of
Microsoft-Watch) revealed that Windows 2000 was released with 20,000
bugs and that Microsoft knowingly released it any way.
Click to expand...

Of course, a number of those bugs were things like spelling mistakes in
window titles and other such stuff that looks bad (looks very bad to be
sure!) but doesn't actually effect the operation of the system.
After this
incident, Microsoft would not speak to Mary Jo Foley for two years
regarding projects and information of any kind.
Click to expand...

If she has the right to use leaked material, they have the right to refuse
to talk to her afterwards.
 
I heard that they had somewhere between 300 or 500 unresolved bugs in Vista
at the moment of RTM. This means of course only active bugs registered in
bug tracking system. I don't have a reliable source to quote however so take
it with a grain of salt.
 
MicroFox said:
In 2000 a leaked memo from Microsoft obtained by Mary Jo Foley (of
Microsoft-Watch) revealed that Windows 2000 was released with 20,000 bugs
and that Microsoft knowingly released it any way. After this incident,
Microsoft would not speak to Mary Jo Foley for two years regarding projects
and information of any kind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows

Now you guys can do your own estimate of how many bugs vista has,
but they will release it anyway. Remember win2000 is very simple compared to
vista.

This tactic however of "release it anyway" does have its merits... if you
want perfection

nothing ever gets done on time.
Click to expand...
WRONG! I, like many others here was in on the beta of 2K and as I recall
that "memo" was somewhat of a greatly overstated "rant".
You need to get a real life MiniFox.
Frank
 
You are correct. TechBeta folks who participated in one of the chats just
before RC1 released were told that the active bug list was "in the hundreds,
not the thousands." That was a long time before rtm.
 
Frank said:
WRONG! I, like many others here was in on the beta of 2K and as I recall
that "memo" was somewhat of a greatly overstated "rant".
You need to get a real life MiniFox.
Frank
Click to expand...

Ditto to you. What a stupid response!
 
I think Mary Jo is still recovering from the effects of that MS
Blacklisting. I think she deserved, it was obviously not true and it was
obviously looking for scoops.
 
MicroFox said:
Now you guys can do your own estimate of how many bugs vista has,
but they will release it anyway. Remember win2000 is very simple compared to
vista.
Click to expand...

Windows Vista is the highest-quality version of Windows that Microsoft has
ever produced. Microsoft has had more people test more builds than previous
development cycles, and the result is that Microsoft received more feedback
than ever before.
 
mik said:
Windows Vista is the highest-quality version of Windows that
Microsoft has ever produced.
Click to expand...

That's like winning an award for being taller than Prince
Microsoft has had more people test more
builds than previous development cycles, and the result is that
Microsoft received more feedback than ever before.
Click to expand...

So was 2000, so was XP. They both still had problems. Quality is more
important than quantity.
 
The internet explorer group has been a combative bunch. They had some real
flame wars when the Vista folks started showing up with IE7 questions. Some
in that group just did not think the Vista folks should even be allowed in.
 
Whether it was 200 bugs or 20,000 bugs in Windows 2000, almost none of them
ever affected me in how I use Windows, both with hundreds of PCs on the job
or a handful at home. Same thing for Windows XP. Over and over again, with
both those OS's, I would read bug reports and think to myself, "Doesn't apply
to me."

Vista, as others have said, is more complicated. It is very cool and has a
lot of great features. But whether the bug list is in the hundreds or the
hundreds of thousands, the difference with Vista over Windows 2000 and XP,
for me, is that the bugs in Vista affect things that I use and do every day.
These bugs are in things that have worked since Windows 95 and now they don't.

So, cool or not, less bugs or more bugs, Vista is much more frustrating for
me right now than Windows 2000 or XP was.
 
Dale said:
But whether the bug list is in the hundreds or the
hundreds of thousands, the difference with Vista over Windows 2000 and XP,
for me, is that the bugs in Vista affect things that I use and do every
day.
These bugs are in things that have worked since Windows 95 and now they
don't.
Click to expand...

Dale,

If you mean application compatibility problems, I wouldn't call it bugs.
Well, not Vista bugs at least.

Bug is an unexpected and undocumanted behaviour while compatibility problem
arises when platform vendor knowlingly changes the way things works in new
version thus braking third-party apps that rely on old behaviour if one uses
them on new OS..

Usually all changes are documented and publicly available for developers
long before OS release. That's not a bug in OS. In case vendor tags app as
compatible with particular version of OS, it's a bug in app.

By the way, there's a number of tools available for both ISVs and
enterprises to test software they use/develop for compatibility and develop
workarounds and fixes. They were available way before Vista RTMd.

As per Allchin, app compat was one of number one priorities for Vista team
so it all could have been much much worse taking into account massive
changes in Vista's internals compared to XP/2003.
 
That group is full of people who have problems with Ie7.

Its your perception that makes them trolls. However they are not trolls.
 
I just read the Wikipedia article you referenced. It also said that
Microsoft Windows, which was originally released in 1983, was based on
Apple's Macintosh OS. The odd thing about that is that the Mac wasn't
released until 1985. The article author as obviously never heard of Xerox.
So, so much for whatever you read from Wikipedia, huh? :)
 
I'll go halves with you: The first Mac came out in 1984. :)

Another bit of trivia is that Microsoft Office appeared on the Mac before it
appeared on the PC.

The idea behind graphical user interfaces driven by a pointing device
descends from the Xerox Star built in the Palo Alto Research Center some
years before. Many companies, including Apple and Microsoft, have borrowed
concepts from the Star, Smalltalk, and other sources.

The idea of a GUI is very compelling.
 
MicroFox said:
That group is full of people who have problems with Ie7.

Its your perception that makes them trolls. However they are not trolls.
Click to expand...

The greater part of the problems signals on that newsgroup is not true that
is I does not have them. It's much probable that those problems have had to
bad installations of IE7 in order to bypass protection WGA.
 
Franz said:
The greater part of the problems signals on that newsgroup is not true that
is I does not have them.
Huh?

It's much probable that those problems have had to
bad installations of IE7 in order to bypass protection WGA.
Click to expand...

Sure, pull the other one; it has bells on it. The pathetic thing is you
probably believe this drivel.

Alias
 
Back
Top