Jim Henderson wrote:

> I've always said that Microsoft is outstanding at producing software 
> that's "just good enough" - ie, it is buggy, but it's good *enough* that 
> people aren't flocking away.

And I've always said that M$'s greatest achievement is in *redefining* 
what people will consider to be "good enough".

Not so many years ago, software that wasn't 100% crash-free was 
unacceptable. Today this is considered "normal". And it's all due to M$.

> That doesn't mean that they wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't go through a 
> process of striving for continuous improvement in their development 
> processes.  And clearly that's something they do (I've known people who 
> have worked in MS Engineering, so this isn't conjecture on my part - it's 
> based on conversations with former colleagues who worked at MS in that 
> capacity).

Really? It's actually to their best advantage economically to make their 
software as inefficient as possible. (Although making it work 
*correctly* would be beneficial to them, making it work *efficiently* 
would cause them to lose money.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message