Gail Shaw wrote:

>> ...and *this* is why Micro$oft is allowed to exist. >_<
> 
> Any just about every other software company in existance. It's not unique to
> MS.

I beg to differ.

Before M$ came along, buying software was like buying any other product; 
people *expected* it to work properly. And if it didn't, it was taken 
back to the shop. Companies that regularly produced poor quality junk 
didn't stay around for very long.

After M$, it became somehow "OK" for software to not actually work 
properly. If M$ can be credited with one original invention, this is it. 
They've somehow made it "acceptable" for software to not really work 
properly. Year after year, they churn out semi-functional bloatware, and 
yet everybody keeps buying it. And it doesn't quite work properly, but 
people think this is somehow "normal".

This is probably why people have such a hard time convincing their 
bosses that bad code should be replaced; bosses [and everybody else] 
*expect* software to not quite work properly any more. It's somehow 
acceptable now...

> In fact, through dealings with MS's tech support and a lot of vender's
> tech support, I've found that the people at MS care more. Far too many
> software venders have the attitude "You bought it, now its your problem"

The company I work for isn't nearly big enough for *any* tech support 
people to speak to us, so I couldn't comment...

>> Sure, users don't care about pretty code. I'm sure if you
>> asked them though, they care rather a lot about *reliable* code...
> 
> They'll probably say they will, but offer, for the same price, a piece of
> software with 10 features that's fairly reliable and a piece of software
> with 4 features that's very reliable and see which they'll choose to buy.
> 
> I'll be you anything, 80%+ will go for the one with more features,
> rationalising that it can do more.

The people who write the cheques? Or the people who have to *use* the 
software? They aren't the same people. ;-)

[But no, I won't bet any actual money, because then I'd loose. No matter 
what I bet on, I loose. I even bet on the chemical symbol for tin - a 
value that cannot ever change - and *still* lost!]

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

Post a reply to this message