why vista so buggy

This question keeps appearing in this and other ng's. I found the following to be a very apt description of why bugswatting in Vista is so tough:
"Compared to the initial release of Windows XP, the sheer amount of different hardware to be supported, as well as the almost infinite combinations of hardware is proving to be quite a challenge for Microsoft as well as the hardware vendors. One of the biggest hurdles to be faced lies in the fact that it is impossible to find bugs, when certain hardware does not work...."
I took it from PROneTworks Vista Newsletter Vol. 1, Issue 55, just released.

Well as we know, Vista is a ways from completion. The most obvious problems will most certainly be driver issues. Working your way around in Vista shall and will be a somewhat of a task compaired to prior operating systems as we see the newsgroups fill up qiuck. This is only to be expected. Beta is geekspeak for "not finished yet.". All in time. "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message

This question keeps appearing in this and other ng's. I found the following to be a very apt description of why bugswatting in Vista is so tough:
"Compared to the initial release of Windows XP, the sheer amount of different hardware to be supported, as well as the almost infinite combinations of hardware is proving to be quite a challenge for Microsoft as well as the hardware vendors. One of the biggest hurdles to be faced lies in the fact that it is impossible to find bugs, when certain hardware does not work...."
I took it from PROneTworks Vista Newsletter Vol. 1, Issue 55, just released.

It took at least a year after XP was released for most manufacturer's to release good drivers. There are still many who can't seem to write drivers without bugs. The way drivers are supposed to work in Vista is very different from XP. Add to that the fact that manufacturer's have to write two drivers, one for 32 bit, and one for 64 bit Vista, and it is easy to see why drivers are an issue. I expect that for most older hardware (older than a year ago) Vista drivers will never be available and it will be at least a year after Vista is released before most drivers are relatively bug free. If people want to use Vista they'll have to put up with updating drivers on a regular basis for at least the next year and a half. I hope to be proved wrong.
-- Kerry Brown MS-MVP - Windows Shell/User
"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message

This question keeps appearing in this and other ng's. I found the following to be a very apt description of why bugswatting in Vista is so tough:
"Compared to the initial release of Windows XP, the sheer amount of different hardware to be supported, as well as the almost infinite combinations of hardware is proving to be quite a challenge for Microsoft as well as the hardware vendors. One of the biggest hurdles to be faced lies in the fact that it is impossible to find bugs, when certain hardware does not work...."
I took it from PROneTworks Vista Newsletter Vol. 1, Issue 55, just released.

Also there is something like 50,000,000 lines of code in Vista. That's 10,000,000 more lines of code that XP had. "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message

This question keeps appearing in this and other ng's. I found the following to be a very apt description of why bugswatting in Vista is so tough:
"Compared to the initial release of Windows XP, the sheer amount of different hardware to be supported, as well as the almost infinite combinations of hardware is proving to be quite a challenge for Microsoft as well as the hardware vendors. One of the biggest hurdles to be faced lies in the fact that it is impossible to find bugs, when certain hardware does not work...."
I took it from PROneTworks Vista Newsletter Vol. 1, Issue 55, just released.

The difference is probably greater because it takes fewer lines of code to do the same things in Visual Studio (or you can think of the API's as being more powerful) today than it did in earlier editions.
"SAM-R" wrote in message

Also there is something like 50,000,000 lines of code in Vista. That's 10,000,000 more lines of code that XP had. "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message This question keeps appearing in this and other ng's. I found the following to be a very apt description of why bugswatting in Vista is so tough:
"Compared to the initial release of Windows XP, the sheer amount of different hardware to be supported, as well as the almost infinite combinations of hardware is proving to be quite a challenge for Microsoft as well as the hardware vendors. One of the biggest hurdles to be faced lies in the fact that it is impossible to find bugs, when certain hardware does not work...."
I took it from PROneTworks Vista Newsletter Vol. 1, Issue 55, just released.

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message

The difference is probably greater because it takes fewer lines of code to do the same things in Visual Studio (or you can think of the API's as being more powerful) today than it did in earlier editions.

Yes, code obfuscating was greatly enhenced with C# and managed code :) Ok 10,000,000 new lines of code... after 5 years with 40,000 programers? Thats 50 lines of code per programer per year... sound managable :)
Stephan

"SAM-R" wrote in message Also there is something like 50,000,000 lines of code in Vista. That's 10,000,000 more lines of code that XP had. "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message This question keeps appearing in this and other ng's. I found the following to be a very apt description of why bugswatting in Vista is so tough:
"Compared to the initial release of Windows XP, the sheer amount of different hardware to be supported, as well as the almost infinite combinations of hardware is proving to be quite a challenge for Microsoft as well as the hardware vendors. One of the biggest hurdles to be faced lies in the fact that it is impossible to find bugs, when certain hardware does not work...."
I took it from PROneTworks Vista Newsletter Vol. 1, Issue 55, just released.

I think they're doing pretty darn good. Remember, this is BETA software and that the actual software doesn't come out for what, 8 months more or so? If it doesn't run so good on your machine, GO BACK TO XP!
And...it's working fine on my machine. Though I did upgrade the video card and RAM.

"Stephan Schaem" wrote in message

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message The difference is probably greater because it takes fewer lines of code to do the same things in Visual Studio (or you can think of the API's as being more powerful) today than it did in earlier editions.
Yes, code obfuscating was greatly enhenced with C# and managed code :) Ok 10,000,000 new lines of code... after 5 years with 40,000 programers? Thats 50 lines of code per programer per year... sound managable :)

Ever thought about coordinating the output of 40,000 programmers so that everything will work with everthing else. No it doesn't sound managable at all.

Stephan

"SAM-R" wrote in message Also there is something like 50,000,000 lines of code in Vista. That's 10,000,000 more lines of code that XP had. "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message This question keeps appearing in this and other ng's. I found the following to be a very apt description of why bugswatting in Vista is so tough:
"Compared to the initial release of Windows XP, the sheer amount of different hardware to be supported, as well as the almost infinite combinations of hardware is proving to be quite a challenge for Microsoft as well as the hardware vendors. One of the biggest hurdles to be faced lies in the fact that it is impossible to find bugs, when certain hardware does not work...."
I took it from PROneTworks Vista Newsletter Vol. 1, Issue 55, just released.

I don't think there are 40,000 programers. 10,000 plus 30,000 program managers, mayber. ;)
"Stephan Schaem" wrote in message

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message The difference is probably greater because it takes fewer lines of code to do the same things in Visual Studio (or you can think of the API's as being more powerful) today than it did in earlier editions.
Yes, code obfuscating was greatly enhenced with C# and managed code :) Ok 10,000,000 new lines of code... after 5 years with 40,000 programers? Thats 50 lines of code per programer per year... sound managable :)
Stephan

"SAM-R" wrote in message Also there is something like 50,000,000 lines of code in Vista. That's 10,000,000 more lines of code that XP had. "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message This question keeps appearing in this and other ng's. I found the following to be a very apt description of why bugswatting in Vista is so tough:
"Compared to the initial release of Windows XP, the sheer amount of different hardware to be supported, as well as the almost infinite combinations of hardware is proving to be quite a challenge for Microsoft as well as the hardware vendors. One of the biggest hurdles to be faced lies in the fact that it is impossible to find bugs, when certain hardware does not work...."
I took it from PROneTworks Vista Newsletter Vol. 1, Issue 55, just released.