Windows 2000 was released with 20,000 bugs

M

MicroFox

In 2000 a leaked memo from Microsoft obtained by Mary Jo Foley (of
Microsoft-Watch) revealed that Windows 2000 was released with 20,000 bugs
and that Microsoft knowingly released it any way. After this incident,
Microsoft would not speak to Mary Jo Foley for two years regarding projects
and information of any kind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows

Now you guys can do your own estimate of how many bugs vista has,
but they will release it anyway. Remember win2000 is very simple compared to
vista.

This tactic however of "release it anyway" does have its merits... if you
want perfection

nothing ever gets done on time.
 

My Computer

R

Robert Moir

MicroFox wrote:
> In 2000 a leaked memo from Microsoft obtained by Mary Jo Foley (of
> Microsoft-Watch) revealed that Windows 2000 was released with 20,000
> bugs and that Microsoft knowingly released it any way.


Of course, a number of those bugs were things like spelling mistakes in
window titles and other such stuff that looks bad (looks very bad to be
sure!) but doesn't actually effect the operation of the system.

> After this
> incident, Microsoft would not speak to Mary Jo Foley for two years
> regarding projects and information of any kind.


If she has the right to use leaked material, they have the right to refuse
to talk to her afterwards.
 

My Computer

A

Alexander Suhovey

I heard that they had somewhere between 300 or 500 unresolved bugs in Vista
at the moment of RTM. This means of course only active bugs registered in
bug tracking system. I don't have a reliable source to quote however so take
it with a grain of salt.

--
Alexander Suhovey


"MicroFox" <-> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In 2000 a leaked memo from Microsoft obtained by Mary Jo Foley (of
> Microsoft-Watch) revealed that Windows 2000 was released with 20,000 bugs
> and that Microsoft knowingly released it any way. After this incident,
> Microsoft would not speak to Mary Jo Foley for two years regarding
> projects and information of any kind.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows
>
> Now you guys can do your own estimate of how many bugs vista has,
> but they will release it anyway. Remember win2000 is very simple compared
> to vista.
>
> This tactic however of "release it anyway" does have its merits... if you
> want perfection
>
> nothing ever gets done on time.
>
>
>
>
 

My Computer

F

Frank

MicroFox wrote:

> In 2000 a leaked memo from Microsoft obtained by Mary Jo Foley (of
> Microsoft-Watch) revealed that Windows 2000 was released with 20,000 bugs
> and that Microsoft knowingly released it any way. After this incident,
> Microsoft would not speak to Mary Jo Foley for two years regarding projects
> and information of any kind.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows
>
> Now you guys can do your own estimate of how many bugs vista has,
> but they will release it anyway. Remember win2000 is very simple compared to
> vista.
>
> This tactic however of "release it anyway" does have its merits... if you
> want perfection
>
> nothing ever gets done on time.
>
>
>
>

WRONG! I, like many others here was in on the beta of 2K and as I recall
that "memo" was somewhat of a greatly overstated "rant".
You need to get a real life MiniFox.
Frank
 

My Computer

C

Colin Barnhorst

You are correct. TechBeta folks who participated in one of the chats just
before RC1 released were told that the active bug list was "in the hundreds,
not the thousands." That was a long time before rtm.

"Alexander Suhovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>I heard that they had somewhere between 300 or 500 unresolved bugs in Vista
>at the moment of RTM. This means of course only active bugs registered in
>bug tracking system. I don't have a reliable source to quote however so
>take it with a grain of salt.
>
> --
> Alexander Suhovey
>
>
> "MicroFox" <-> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> In 2000 a leaked memo from Microsoft obtained by Mary Jo Foley (of
>> Microsoft-Watch) revealed that Windows 2000 was released with 20,000 bugs
>> and that Microsoft knowingly released it any way. After this incident,
>> Microsoft would not speak to Mary Jo Foley for two years regarding
>> projects and information of any kind.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows
>>
>> Now you guys can do your own estimate of how many bugs vista has,
>> but they will release it anyway. Remember win2000 is very simple compared
>> to vista.
>>
>> This tactic however of "release it anyway" does have its merits... if you
>> want perfection
>>
>> nothing ever gets done on time.
>>
>>
>>
>>

>
 

My Computer

Q

Quanta

"Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> MicroFox wrote:
>
>> In 2000 a leaked memo from Microsoft obtained by Mary Jo Foley (of
>> Microsoft-Watch) revealed that Windows 2000 was released with 20,000 bugs
>> and that Microsoft knowingly released it any way. After this incident,
>> Microsoft would not speak to Mary Jo Foley for two years regarding
>> projects and information of any kind.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows
>>
>> Now you guys can do your own estimate of how many bugs vista has,
>> but they will release it anyway. Remember win2000 is very simple compared
>> to vista.
>>
>> This tactic however of "release it anyway" does have its merits... if you
>> want perfection
>>
>> nothing ever gets done on time.
>>
>>
>>
>>

> WRONG! I, like many others here was in on the beta of 2K and as I recall
> that "memo" was somewhat of a greatly overstated "rant".
> You need to get a real life MiniFox.
> Frank


Ditto to you. What a stupid response!
 

My Computer

F

Frank

Quanta wrote:
> "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>MicroFox wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In 2000 a leaked memo from Microsoft obtained by Mary Jo Foley (of
>>>Microsoft-Watch) revealed that Windows 2000 was released with 20,000 bugs
>>>and that Microsoft knowingly released it any way. After this incident,
>>>Microsoft would not speak to Mary Jo Foley for two years regarding
>>>projects and information of any kind.
>>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows
>>>
>>>Now you guys can do your own estimate of how many bugs vista has,
>>>but they will release it anyway. Remember win2000 is very simple compared
>>>to vista.
>>>
>>>This tactic however of "release it anyway" does have its merits... if you
>>>want perfection
>>>
>>>nothing ever gets done on time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>WRONG! I, like many others here was in on the beta of 2K and as I recall
>>that "memo" was somewhat of a greatly overstated "rant".
>>You need to get a real life MiniFox.
>>Frank

>
>
> Ditto to you. What a stupid response!
>
>

"Ditto to you.."? What are you, a MinFox or MJF apologists?
Frank
 

My Computer

A

Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]

I think Mary Jo is still recovering from the effects of that MS
Blacklisting. I think she deserved, it was obviously not true and it was
obviously looking for scoops.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!E8E5CC039D51E3DB!9709.entry
"MicroFox" <-> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In 2000 a leaked memo from Microsoft obtained by Mary Jo Foley (of
> Microsoft-Watch) revealed that Windows 2000 was released with 20,000 bugs
> and that Microsoft knowingly released it any way. After this incident,
> Microsoft would not speak to Mary Jo Foley for two years regarding
> projects and information of any kind.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows
>
> Now you guys can do your own estimate of how many bugs vista has,
> but they will release it anyway. Remember win2000 is very simple compared
> to vista.
>
> This tactic however of "release it anyway" does have its merits... if you
> want perfection
>
> nothing ever gets done on time.
>
>
>
>
 

My Computer

M

mik

"MicroFox" wrote:

> Now you guys can do your own estimate of how many bugs vista has,
> but they will release it anyway. Remember win2000 is very simple compared to
> vista.


Windows Vista is the highest-quality version of Windows that Microsoft has
ever produced. Microsoft has had more people test more builds than previous
development cycles, and the result is that Microsoft received more feedback
than ever before.
 

My Computer

M

MicroFox

go to the ie7 newsgroup and se whats happening

then revise you wrong theory

"mik" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
>
> "MicroFox" wrote:
>
>> Now you guys can do your own estimate of how many bugs vista has,
>> but they will release it anyway. Remember win2000 is very simple compared
>> to
>> vista.

>
> Windows Vista is the highest-quality version of Windows that Microsoft has
> ever produced. Microsoft has had more people test more builds than
> previous
> development cycles, and the result is that Microsoft received more
> feedback
> than ever before.
 

My Computer

R

Robert Moir

mik wrote:
> "MicroFox" wrote:
>
>> Now you guys can do your own estimate of how many bugs vista has,
>> but they will release it anyway. Remember win2000 is very simple
>> compared to vista.

>
> Windows Vista is the highest-quality version of Windows that
> Microsoft has ever produced.


That's like winning an award for being taller than Prince

> Microsoft has had more people test more
> builds than previous development cycles, and the result is that
> Microsoft received more feedback than ever before.


So was 2000, so was XP. They both still had problems. Quality is more
important than quantity.
 

My Computer

M

mik

"MicroFox" wrote:

> go to the ie7 newsgroup and se whats happening
>
> then revise you wrong theory


that newsgroup is full of trolls like you!
 

My Computer

C

Colin Barnhorst

The internet explorer group has been a combative bunch. They had some real
flame wars when the Vista folks started showing up with IE7 questions. Some
in that group just did not think the Vista folks should even be allowed in.

"mik" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
>
> "MicroFox" wrote:
>
>> go to the ie7 newsgroup and se whats happening
>>
>> then revise you wrong theory

>
> that newsgroup is full of trolls like you!
 

My Computer

D

Dale

Whether it was 200 bugs or 20,000 bugs in Windows 2000, almost none of them
ever affected me in how I use Windows, both with hundreds of PCs on the job
or a handful at home. Same thing for Windows XP. Over and over again, with
both those OS's, I would read bug reports and think to myself, "Doesn't apply
to me."

Vista, as others have said, is more complicated. It is very cool and has a
lot of great features. But whether the bug list is in the hundreds or the
hundreds of thousands, the difference with Vista over Windows 2000 and XP,
for me, is that the bugs in Vista affect things that I use and do every day.
These bugs are in things that have worked since Windows 95 and now they don't.

So, cool or not, less bugs or more bugs, Vista is much more frustrating for
me right now than Windows 2000 or XP was.


--
Dale Preston
MCAD C#
MCSE, MCDBA


"MicroFox" wrote:

> In 2000 a leaked memo from Microsoft obtained by Mary Jo Foley (of
> Microsoft-Watch) revealed that Windows 2000 was released with 20,000 bugs
> and that Microsoft knowingly released it any way. After this incident,
> Microsoft would not speak to Mary Jo Foley for two years regarding projects
> and information of any kind.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows
>
> Now you guys can do your own estimate of how many bugs vista has,
> but they will release it anyway. Remember win2000 is very simple compared to
> vista.
>
> This tactic however of "release it anyway" does have its merits... if you
> want perfection
>
> nothing ever gets done on time.
>
>
>
>
>
 

My Computer

A

Alexander Suhovey

"Dale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> But whether the bug list is in the hundreds or the
> hundreds of thousands, the difference with Vista over Windows 2000 and XP,
> for me, is that the bugs in Vista affect things that I use and do every
> day.
> These bugs are in things that have worked since Windows 95 and now they
> don't.


Dale,

If you mean application compatibility problems, I wouldn't call it bugs.
Well, not Vista bugs at least.

Bug is an unexpected and undocumanted behaviour while compatibility problem
arises when platform vendor knowlingly changes the way things works in new
version thus braking third-party apps that rely on old behaviour if one uses
them on new OS..

Usually all changes are documented and publicly available for developers
long before OS release. That's not a bug in OS. In case vendor tags app as
compatible with particular version of OS, it's a bug in app.

By the way, there's a number of tools available for both ISVs and
enterprises to test software they use/develop for compatibility and develop
workarounds and fixes. They were available way before Vista RTMd.

As per Allchin, app compat was one of number one priorities for Vista team
so it all could have been much much worse taking into account massive
changes in Vista's internals compared to XP/2003.

--
Alexander Suhovey
 

My Computer

M

MicroFox

That group is full of people who have problems with Ie7.

Its your perception that makes them trolls. However they are not trolls.


"mik" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
>
> "MicroFox" wrote:
>
>> go to the ie7 newsgroup and se whats happening
>>
>> then revise you wrong theory

>
> that newsgroup is full of trolls like you!
 

My Computer

D

Dale

I just read the Wikipedia article you referenced. It also said that
Microsoft Windows, which was originally released in 1983, was based on
Apple's Macintosh OS. The odd thing about that is that the Mac wasn't
released until 1985. The article author as obviously never heard of Xerox.
So, so much for whatever you read from Wikipedia, huh? :)
--
Dale Preston
MCAD C#
MCSE, MCDBA


"MicroFox" wrote:

> In 2000 a leaked memo from Microsoft obtained by Mary Jo Foley (of
> Microsoft-Watch) revealed that Windows 2000 was released with 20,000 bugs
> and that Microsoft knowingly released it any way. After this incident,
> Microsoft would not speak to Mary Jo Foley for two years regarding projects
> and information of any kind.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows
>
> Now you guys can do your own estimate of how many bugs vista has,
> but they will release it anyway. Remember win2000 is very simple compared to
> vista.
>
> This tactic however of "release it anyway" does have its merits... if you
> want perfection
>
> nothing ever gets done on time.
>
>
>
>
>
 

My Computer

C

Colin Barnhorst

I'll go halves with you: The first Mac came out in 1984. :)

Another bit of trivia is that Microsoft Office appeared on the Mac before it
appeared on the PC.

The idea behind graphical user interfaces driven by a pointing device
descends from the Xerox Star built in the Palo Alto Research Center some
years before. Many companies, including Apple and Microsoft, have borrowed
concepts from the Star, Smalltalk, and other sources.

The idea of a GUI is very compelling.

"Dale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>I just read the Wikipedia article you referenced. It also said that
> Microsoft Windows, which was originally released in 1983, was based on
> Apple's Macintosh OS. The odd thing about that is that the Mac wasn't
> released until 1985. The article author as obviously never heard of
> Xerox.
> So, so much for whatever you read from Wikipedia, huh? :)
> --
> Dale Preston
> MCAD C#
> MCSE, MCDBA
>
>
> "MicroFox" wrote:
>
>> In 2000 a leaked memo from Microsoft obtained by Mary Jo Foley (of
>> Microsoft-Watch) revealed that Windows 2000 was released with 20,000 bugs
>> and that Microsoft knowingly released it any way. After this incident,
>> Microsoft would not speak to Mary Jo Foley for two years regarding
>> projects
>> and information of any kind.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows
>>
>> Now you guys can do your own estimate of how many bugs vista has,
>> but they will release it anyway. Remember win2000 is very simple compared
>> to
>> vista.
>>
>> This tactic however of "release it anyway" does have its merits... if you
>> want perfection
>>
>> nothing ever gets done on time.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
 

My Computer

F

Franz

"MicroFox" wrote:

> That group is full of people who have problems with Ie7.
>
> Its your perception that makes them trolls. However they are not trolls.


The greater part of the problems signals on that newsgroup is not true that
is I does not have them. It's much probable that those problems have had to
bad installations of IE7 in order to bypass protection WGA.
 

My Computer

A

Alias

Franz wrote:
>
> "MicroFox" wrote:
>
>> That group is full of people who have problems with Ie7.
>>
>> Its your perception that makes them trolls. However they are not trolls.

>
> The greater part of the problems signals on that newsgroup is not true that
> is I does not have them.


Huh?

> It's much probable that those problems have had to
> bad installations of IE7 in order to bypass protection WGA.
>


Sure, pull the other one; it has bells on it. The pathetic thing is you
probably believe this drivel.

Alias
 

My Computer

Top