atw: Re: Anyone tried Microsoft anti-spyware?
- From: "Brian Clarke" <brianclarke01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 22:06:14 +1100
I know some of you are programmers and actually understand what's involved in
producing code of such complexity as Microsoft has done. And such people will
understand the concepts of 'reuse' and 'economics'.
I wonder whether some of us are entertaining expectations that we don't hold
for far more expensive products.
Up till about 5 years ago, we all expected new motor vehicles to have bugs that
would be ironed out during warranty - we did not expect perfection. When I
lived
in the UK, we expected motor vehicles to have bugs for the whole of the
warranty period and beyond - but rust got the vehicle before it became a
millstone around the manufacturer's neck. Then along came Volvo offering
almost a lifetime of rust warranty - that got right up the Brits' noses.
Unfortunately, Volvos didn't get a toe-hold in France because of the cost of
fuel
- there, the tin-plate on tin-plate that passed for French engineering won on
the
grounds of fuel economy.
I wonder how the Airbus will last compared with the engineering of Boeing.
Once again, short-term economics [fuel costs] seems to have ruled - Airbus
has no record of engineering performance, of which I am aware. Please
disabuse me!
I digress.
Now, back to programs. Why don't we recognise that Microsoft does listen to
customers' plaints as it is from these that its products have grown in breadth
of coverage and competence - because of that responsiveness. The Microsoft
organisation uses a project model that was first developed in General Motors
when Alfred P Sloan was in charge; there, no part of a vehicle was produced
in-house unless it met stringent competition from similar, competent, outside
producers . What Microsoft does is to fund those competitors internally. The
fact that it continues to support product originally marketed seven years ago
is remarkable in today's economic rationalistic climate. The fact that later
products can work with the earlier products is also quite remarkable - only
Jaguar among the motor vehicle manufacturers reused engine and power
train components for more than three generations of vehicles. I believe that
Kalashnikov did a similar thing with their AK-series of personnel suppressors.
What I'm suggesting is that we set our technical and economic
expectations to 'real', instead of 'perfect'. Co-operate with the manufacturer,
and provide constructive criticism - instead of this cheap carping. Then,
we'ld all benefit. If you want a more highly engineered product, buy
yourself a Rolls-Royce instead of trying to fit 17 people into a Morris Mini
Minor.
Brian.
BJA said:
Personally I find it ironic that Microsoft (MS) now want to profit by
patching up the holes in their own software.
**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.
To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.
To search the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
Other related posts:
