Win2k

[Frankfurt]

not sure which forum this belongs in, so ill post it here
I read over on slashdot the other day that win2k is gonna be shipping with around 65K bugs. If you do the math, there are about 29Million lines of code in win2k, which translates to about 1 bug for every 463 lines of code...call me crazy but that sounds like win2k was released prematurely...anyone else have thoughts on this. I would supply the webpage, but i don't know it

[Randy Simons]

Ah well, those linux-freaks...

Win2K isn't perfect. But for such a big update things run pretty smooth.

And what do they call "bugs"? Things that let your computer freeze? Or do weird things? Or are just not-so-efficient-lines-of-code?

I'm not a M$ evangelist, but for me, win2k is certainly better than win98. And with its better foundations, I believe things can only get better.

Btw: my G200 is happy with it

[zippy]

at zdnet w2k has 63k+ bugs. 28k could be considered "serious". I will hold off on w2k awhile. BTW millenium is good aparently! I know someone online who's friend is a millenium beta tester. Its really good, stable, and runs everything w98se can.

[zippy]

Simmer gurm...

I personally don't have millenium, just relaying some info that shocked me too! BTW, this wasn't a "secret memo" from M$, there were some quote from top M$ people and from the group who found the bugs, also these top M$ people admitted it. Check zdnet.com

[Helevitia]

AS I work in the software engineering dept. of a big corp, I can say that it is normal to have many bugs and usually they fix the most crucial bugs such as crahses, memoery corruption, anything that might cause catastrophic damage. Then there are the rest of the bugs which usually get fixed in maintance releases and such. If it's not catastrophic or severe, and there is a deadline to meet, it will probably get pushed aside.

Dave

[paulcs]

From what I heard, Helevitia is correct. There are about 28,000 issues that Microsoft genuinely considers bugs that should be addressed in the first service pack. And there was a rush to get it out the door.

Possibly, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm probably talking out of my butt, some of these bugs are the cause of some gaming issues. If I was in a decision-making role at Microsoft, and I had to let some issues go, gaming would be the first area I would let suffer. If W2K was a consumer OS, I might feel differently.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[PaulS]

I would bet these bugs are all outside the kernel and the kernel mode drivers. MS only released W2k when ther were sure there were no show stoppers, that is bugs that could cause OS failures. Because games use mostly their own code, and a few kernel mode drivers, the only bugs that could affect games would have to be in the DX7 libraries. MS will ship DX updates as necessary, service packs will not be the delivery mechanism for these.

So far MS has released DX fixes quite quickly, if there are any significant problems I think MS will release a DX7a for Win2K in a very timely fashion.

Paul

[This message has been edited by PaulS (edited 15 February 2000).]

[Rob M.]

You should also remember that in very large software programs, there comes a point in time when extra time put into debugging actually increases the amount of bugs in a program. A bug fix can adversely affect other parts of a large program.

[mj12]

HAHA. Oh my I almost fell off my chair.

BTW millenium is good aparently! I know someone online who's friend is a millenium beta tester. Its really good, stable, and runs everything w98se can.

Millennium is the biggest pile of bits. Anyone here who ever considers *upgrading* from w98se is not going to be happy.

[noackjr]

About the 63,000 bug issue:

If there are 63,000 bugs in Win2000 then I don't even want to know how many were in NT 4, much less Win98 or Win95. Think about it people. To my knowledge, Win2000 went through the most exhaustive beta testing the world has seen. I think MS prolly nailed down most of the bugs that mattered. From what I hear, the part that was really rushed had to do with all the server platforms. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the bugs turned out to be in these server platforms and not in Professional.

Final thought:
Everyone who has reviewed the OS has said it is faster and more reliable than NT and Win98, including ZDNet! From a ZDNet article at http://www.zdnet.com/zdhubs/stories/...9938-3,00.html .

For starters, Windows 2000 is practically crash-proof. Really. If you've grown accustomed to rebooting your PC every few hours, whether you need to or not, you'll probably be shocked by smooth operation measured in weeks or months. Thanks to memory protection, ill-behaved programs can't lock up the rest of your system, and the dreaded Blue Screen of Death - a system crash typically caused by a poorly written hardware driver - is practically an endangered species.

Wow, 63,000 bugs are sure scaring them...

Jon

[noackjr]

hehehehehe...

Good point - never even thought of it that way - most times I think they are all my fault!

Jon

[Avron]

Hmm, personally I tried upgrading from win98SE, and it sucked, it crashed more than an early beta of win95 actually.. I got rid of it and reinstalled regular Win98 pretty fast.. Just remember how well games ran when Win95 was first released.. What they didn't run at all? oh.. hehe..

- Avron -

[noackjr]

The biggest problem with most upgrades is software that is not compatible with 2000 installed on the system. Did you try a fresh install? It sounds like you did with 98 (after giving up), so why not give it a try under 2000 as well?

Jon

[LAMFDTK]

[I read over on slashdot the other day that win2k is gonna be shipping with around 65K bugs]
Oh then it must be true, Slashdot is so cool..

[Hmm, personally I tried upgrading from win98SE, and it sucked, it crashed more than an early beta of win95 ]

And you admitt it? Here on the Murc ? Whoa ! My Dog can get SE to run ! Thanks for your resume of expertise.

[Millennium is the biggest pile of bits. Anyone here who ever considers *upgrading* from w98se is not going to be happy]

Another stupid opinion! what the hell are you talkng about? "Think of Windows Me as "Windows 98 Third Edition." It's a simple minor release of the old Windows 9x line with no major new features. The user interface makes it look like Windows 2000, but it's all 98 under the covers."
Man I'm feeling so "Un-happy"....

Here is some more on WME..
Windows Me differs very little from Windows 98, since it is simply the latest release in the 9x family. It features a new TCP/IP stack, a System Restore feature, silent installation of USB keyboards, mice, and hubs, a Movie Maker application for recording, editing, publishing, and organizing audio and video content, the removal of Real mode DOS, and a number of other small improvements. Beta builds of "Millennium" (the code name for Windows Me) look similar to Windows 2000 Professional on the surface, but are virtually identical to Windows 98 otherwise.

Stop with the "I read a few web pages and now I have an opinion and feel obligated to share it" Please it gets so OLD

W2K is the best O/S out of the box that I have ever had.

[APV]

If you dual boot W2k and Win98/SE like I do, you'll begin to dislike Win98.

W2k is much much more stable than win98, just give it a bit of time when hardware companies catch up with proper drivers, I am planning to delete win98 from my box for good when this happens.

BTW anyone knows how to undelete win98?