1 in 10 PCs have problems with SP2

[Don Taylor]

First off, where did the 10% figure come from? Someones imagination? Where is
the data?

The data came from some outfit that took Microsoft's list of potential
problem software and scanned a fairly decent number of machines to see
what fraction of them had one or more of those installed. The name of
the company has been mentioned several times earlier in the week. The
results were published I believe, I just didn't write down the company
name at the time.

However, lots of folks here have problems and some say they have none
of the programs on that list. And other folks say they have no
problems even though they do have programs on that list.

That says NOTHING about randomly dialing up 10,000 users who downloaded
SP2 and asking them if they had any problems during the installation.
But, as someone pointed out, the typical person may have problems but
not even be aware of them, if you don't happen to exercise that feature.

Thus far I don't know of anyone who has made the 10,000 calls. But that
would be great fodder for one of the magazines to do. Microsoft probably
has some idea at this point, if for no other reason than the number of
failure reports sent back to them automatically. But if they know they
aren't talking.

MS DID produce a robust and secure XP, capable to be run on a wide
variety of hardware.

It depends on what a person considers robust and secure. Is a 10%
problem rate robust and secure? (Actually, how in the would could the
average user KNOW it was robust and secure, many have claimed that
average users are too stupid to complain about this, it is all their
own fault if anything goes wrong, but that is another issue) Is 1%
problem rate robust and secure? Is 0.00001% robust and secure?
(that can actually be done, and has been done)

Why do service packs have to meet something less than 2
years between issues?

Some companies have enough grief trying to keep up with new versions
every two years, let alone every six months. Choose something that
is good enough for a while and live with it, get some productive work
done before you yank it all and everybody has to deal with the changes.

It is more than apparent you have no programming
experience whatsoever and therefore you don't know what you're talking about.
Just some emotional gibberish.

I spent the decade of the 1980's producing 6-sigma quality software.
That equates to you and two dozen of your friends using a product for
fifty years and still having a 90% chance that not a one of you would
have ever seen a single error in your lifetime, no matter how small.

All that was given up in the 1990's when getting a new version out
with a few hundred new "features" every six months was the new mantra.

 

[Alex Nichol]

The data came from some outfit that took Microsoft's list of potential
problem software and scanned a fairly decent number of machines to see
what fraction of them had one or more of those installed. The name of
the company has been mentioned several times earlier in the week. The
results were published I believe, I just didn't write down the company
name at the time.

And one must bear in mind it seems to have been based on a list of
programs that Microsoft says 'may have issues'. That usually means no
more than that a setting will need changing; very often just to allow it
to work through a firewall