OK - I see you don't grasp the comparative models.
Do you blame the manufacturer of tires because after 20K miles the tire are wearing down ?
In the mechanical system of an automobile, there is friction taking its course all of the
system. This friction causes wear.
Comparably, using a computer has a wear and tear factor as well. Data on hard disks will
become fragmented (there are NO operating systems don't suffer from data fragmentation or
memory fragmentation as a function of time, NONE), DLLs can get replaced or be put in the
"path" causing errors, the Registry will get bloated, etc.
All systems will suffer some form of chaotic behaviour due to the "Chaos and Complex
Systems" postulate and it makes no difference if it is a mechanical system or a computing
system.
As for your statement -- "One of them can actually produce some fun, the other is a huge
pain in the ass."
That is true for both. A car can be a lot of fun. I can cruise the highways, go to the
beach, go to the mountains, see the sights. However, if I have an auto with a problem such
as a radiator hose with a thin wall, I could end up at the side of the road in nowheresville
with a PITA. Likewise, I can have fun with a computer cruising the Internet, seeing the
sights, playing games or writing a thesis or balancing a budget. However, a maintenance
problem, not unlike the radiator hose, can side line my use of the computer. The RPC/RPCSS
DCOM Buffer Overflow problem and its side effects are comparable to a broken radiator hose.
They both will side line my fun and cause a PITA.
I brought up the Chaos and Complex Systems postulate because given any set of circumstances
in a complex system chaos will be the outcome. Both computers and automobiles are complex
systems. They both are a system in total and have multiple subsystems providing particular
functions The both have dependencies and interdependencies. If I disrupt an
interdependencies and in some way there will be ripple effects up and down the whole system.
You also stated -- "...These are all patches to fix errors. Does your PC go faster as a
result of these patches...."
No. Just like when you replace an alternator in a automobile, your automobile won't go
faster. You fixed the system, not upgraded it. If you add more RAM and put in a new CPU
then you will go faster. Similarly, if you put in a new carburetor or fuel injection system
and changed the exhaust and/or bored out the cylinders the automobile will go faster.
I'm truly sorry that you don't grasp the reality of the concept nor the reality of the
situation. I have tried to boil it down to a simple model and show you that problems are
inevitable. However, the human factor can increase the probability of failure in the
system.
I doubt that I have really totally enlightened you but I hope I have installed a small
understanding that will eventually lead to a fuller understanding of overarching concept.
Dave
| Computers and cars are products, consumable items. One of them can actually
| produce some fun, the other is a huge pain in the ass.
|
| If software was written correctly, you wouldn't need to defrag, install
| hotfixes or Service packs.
| Service packs and Hotfixes are avoiding a 'total recall' in the analogy of
| motor vehicle. These are all patches to fix errors. Does your PC go faster
| as a result of these patches....no, do your applications go
| faster....no.........improvements to applications.....try another vendor eg
| IE vs mozilla/Firefox la la la.
| When people write code and sales push delivery for a product to be released,
| you will always have errors caused by compromise. It's a matter of balance
| on how much income is derived from the least amount of effort, and how much
| the customer can afford to take the risk of accepting a compromise.
| Windows has never been perfect, nor will it ever be. Consumers are so fed up
| with the current Windows, they can't wait for an improvement to come out,
| hence so much anticipation when a new OS is released. Enterprise couldn't
| care less about new releases, they are struggling to keep up with the old OS
| and fixes for that!
|
| If patches are delivered, it means 'gee, we really did a good job at fixing
| that problem' and we are the good guys for giving it away for free and the
| world will be a better place. Pfffft. Blow the other horn.
|
| | > You don't get it.
| >
| > An automobile -- a mechanical system
| > A computer -- a computing system
| >
| > To maintain your auto you change the oil, put air in the tires, etc, etc.
| > To maintain a computing platform you install HotFixes and Service Packs,
| run disk
| > defragmenters, etc, etc.
| >
| > It is as simple as that.
| >
| > Dave
| >
| >
| >
| > | > | Not a great reply...two totally different things.
| > |
| > | Win 2000 was the first OS MS actually had close to being right. Compare
| that
| > | to a nice Volvo (nothing flashy...but stable, reliable, runs well, low
| > | maintenance). XP comes out flashy but with huge security issues and MS
| > | decides to force users to "upgrade" to what has been proven to be
| inferior
| > | software. That's not an oil change, that's getting screwed by a used car
| > | salesman in a plaid sport coat.
| > |
| > | "S.Sengupta" wrote:
| > |
| > | > Great reply.
)
| > | >
| > | > regards,
| > | > ssg MS-MVP
| > | >
| > | > David H. Lipman wrote:
| > | >
| > | > > Automobile oil change -- Why bother ?
| > | > >
| > | > > Dave
| > | > >
| > | > >
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
