|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |