Computer?

[magpens]

-> What is different about computers that you find it difficult to learn what it takes to own and use one, or are unwilling to invest the same time you invested when you learned how to maintain cars or operate a lathe?

What is different is often in the abstractness and scope of "the concepts" and "the language" involved.

With a lathe, to compare, the concepts of "rotational speed" and "sharpness" are quite familiar to most people who are more than a year old.

But there we go, oversimplifying perhaps.

 

[leehljp]

Having my own computer consulting business since 1984, I can tell you that getting people to back up their data is the hardest job I have....until they lose everything the first time...then they BACKUP!

I agree fully.
Everyone thought I was crazy (well I am) as I always recommended in addition to getting a back up HD:
1. get a larger hard drive than is available on most lower priced units;
2. Never purchase the entry level unless they want frustration in a year or so;
3. Get double the RAM at the beginning.
Minimum RAM and smallest HD are recipes for trouble beginning as early as 6 months and usually within a year.

 

[jttheclockman]

Wow just not that easy. Again I agree with you it takes something to do basic maintaining and backing up stuff is probably one of those things. But to compare using a computer to a car is like comparing me being an electrician to just learning how to turn a tripped breaker back on. Owning a house takes all kinds of basic know hows but does not always gets you by and that is why you call in a pro or at least you should. I have now learned what I thought was a noble thing I was doing trying to back up my photos and other info but that also failed. How many times do you need to back up the back ups? Example. Use a thumb drive to back up files and forget to shut it down before extracting can ruin that drive and yes I have seen this happen too. Human error. Learning to speak the speak when it comes to computers is like learning a foreign language. If you grew up with it or work with in your job description is one thing but get up in age and try doing it. I know enough to get me in trouble. It was my mistake that got me in this fix in the first place. My wireless mouse froze on me and it has happened before and what I would do is hold the reset button down on tower to reboot and that clears things. Well my finger slipped off and did not hold down long enough and it went to reboot and guess it started in the middle and corrupted things. No one ever told me that could happen but it did. I am sure there are methods to do with keyboard but again do not know them. I paid the price and this will not be my only mistake for sure. Just hope it is not as costly. OPh yea do not stick your finger in an electrical outlet. My little tip to all.

 

[sbwertz]

If you have Amazon Prime, they automatically back up all your photos to the cloud.

 

[penicillin]

The issues that JT describes with computers are common. He is not alone, not even close.

Despite his comments, I see little difference between computers, cars, woodworking, and many other discplines. Each has their own terminology, traditions, standards, humor, and more. Some people are beginners and barely know the basics, just enough to operate the device without understanding how it works or what it takes to maintain it. Others are experts.

Many people can drive a car, just as many people can surf the web or send/receive email from their computers. Even though they can drive, many people do not know the basics of maintaining their cars, like oil changes and checking tire pressure. (At least you must pass a test to be allowed to drive a car, a potentially dangerous and deadly tool.) Computers have their own maintenance requirements; why would anyone expect them to be different?

Heck, you should clean out your toaster every once in a while to avoid a potential fire. Does everyone do it or even know that it should be done? I suspect not. Was it written somewhere with the electrical safety warnings and other disclaimers in the fine print somewhere on the first five pages of the instructions? Probably yes.

Woodworkers must be very careful to avoid serious injury from their tools. Avoiding injury is expected, yet anyone is allowed to buy tools and get started. Perfection regarding safety is expected. That's true for woodworking and for computers. One mistake with a woodworking tool and you may lose fingers or worse. One mistake with a computer and you may lose your data, as JT found out.

My home came with a hydraulic lift. It was similar to the kind they use to raise cars for repairs at service stations. I had to step up and learn about those hydraulic systems ... at least enough to make repairs and maintain it properly. I had to learn the terminology, understand what all the weird components did, and buy the right tooling, too. None of it was fun and I didn't want to learn it, but sometimes you just have to step up. Computers are no different.

Off topic, but related:
By the way, lawyers are getting rich off this. They make a fortune writing stuff like, "Hold these kitchen knives only by the handles. Do not hold knives by the blades!" ... then they turn around and sue a manufacturer for failing to include a warning like, "Do not remove safety covers and touch live components inside!"

 

[jttheclockman]

Well I will go off topic here as well if you want to go down that rabbit hole and am sure will hit a nerve with some, how about gun purchases and gun safety? You talk about needing a license to drive a car, why not to own a gun. Just as deadly. I love our Gov. proposals he has now about getting a license and registration and having to renew every 4 years. Maintaining them is important to. Not wanting to open this up to word wars.

Again my point is responsible people will go to some lengths to learn about things they own and use. Computers today are like phones today, just overlooked and becoming disposable. Gizmos and gadgets. If anything comes out of this topic is yes backup your important work done on your computers by all means. set up a schedule to do this and stick with it. Lesson learned. Thanks all for participating.

 

[BULLWINKLE]

If they are updates from Microsoft then they are most likely patches that should be installed. Many of these can be security patches meant to fix bugs in the operating system that create vulnerabilities in the operating system. HP may also have updates to improve your computers performance. I would be cautious about any third party application updates that you are uncertain about.

I gave up on Windows. They shouldn't have patches to fix bugs. They should be fixed BEFORE they sell their computers. Windows last decent operating system in my opinion was Windows'98.
I don't regret going to Mac, and I also have a Linux computer.

 

[TDahl]

I gave up on Windows. They shouldn't have patches to fix bugs. They should be fixed BEFORE they sell their computers. Windows last decent operating system in my opinion was Windows'98.
I don't regret going to Mac, and I also have a Linux computer.

The operating system for Macs (MacOS) is definitely a more secure system since it is a closed system. Linux and Windows are both open systems so they are more vulnerable to the latest security intrusions (which is usually the reason for so many updates.) I agree Windows 98 was a good operating system because it allowed the end user to make whatever changes they wanted to make to the system. The latest Windows system is very restrictive essentially giving Microsoft control of what applications you run (more of a marketing ploy by Microsoft in my opinion....but that is a discussion for another time.) If I had to choose one system, I would go with MacOS.

 

[sbwertz]

I gave up on Windows. They shouldn't have patches to fix bugs. They should be fixed BEFORE they sell their computers. Windows last decent operating system in my opinion was Windows'98.
I don't regret going to Mac, and I also have a Linux computer.

Microsoft has beta testers....they are called "users." They expect us to find the bugs in their programs for them. As a computer consultant, however, I have no choice but to use Windows since 90 percent of my clients are Windows based. I have an IPAD, so I am familiar with IOS for those who use Macs. I also have background in Unix and Linux.

 

[BULLWINKLE]

The issues that JT describes with computers are common. He is not alone, not even close.

Despite his comments, I see little difference between computers, cars, woodworking, and many other discplines. Each has their own terminology, traditions, standards, humor, and more. Some people are beginners and barely know the basics, just enough to operate the device without understanding how it works or what it takes to maintain it. Others are experts.

Many people can drive a car, just as many people can surf the web or send/receive email from their computers. Even though they can drive, many people do not know the basics of maintaining their cars, like oil changes and checking tire pressure. (At least you must pass a test to be allowed to drive a car, a potentially dangerous and deadly tool.) Computers have their own maintenance requirements; why would anyone expect them to be different?

Heck, you should clean out your toaster every once in a while to avoid a potential fire. Does everyone do it or even know that it should be done? I suspect not. Was it written somewhere with the electrical safety warnings and other disclaimers in the fine print somewhere on the first five pages of the instructions? Probably yes.

Woodworkers must be very careful to avoid serious injury from their tools. Avoiding injury is expected, yet anyone is allowed to buy tools and get started. Perfection regarding safety is expected. That's true for woodworking and for computers. One mistake with a woodworking tool and you may lose fingers or worse. One mistake with a computer and you may lose your data, as JT found out.

My home came with a hydraulic lift. It was similar to the kind they use to raise cars for repairs at service stations. I had to step up and learn about those hydraulic systems ... at least enough to make repairs and maintain it properly. I had to learn the terminology, understand what all the weird components did, and buy the right tooling, too. None of it was fun and I didn't want to learn it, but sometimes you just have to step up. Computers are no different.

Off topic, but related:
By the way, lawyers are getting rich off this. They make a fortune writing stuff like, "Hold these kitchen knives only by the handles. Do not hold knives by the blades!" ... then they turn around and sue a manufacturer for failing to include a warning like, "Do not remove safety covers and touch live components inside!"

Microsoft has beta testers....they are called "users." They expect us to find the bugs in their programs for them. As a computer consultant, however, I have no choice but to use Windows since 90 percent of my clients are Windows based. I have an IPAD, so I am familiar with IOS for those who use Macs. I also have background in Unix and Linux.

Sbwertz: I think that it should be up to the developers of Windows to find bugs in the code before release, not having "users" shell out their money on glitchy systems. Many years ago, I was working on a job giving support to users of AIX systems on high dollar medical equipment . I love Unix but I agree with you that Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on computers. Nice thing about Unix, they work well out of the box. Not for computer novices, but No blue screen of death, No files mysteriously vanishing etc.
As you say they aren't the most popular. They are expensive and they aren't for the computer challenged user. Apple has a very small share of the PC market. Sad thing is that anti monopoly laws don't seem to apply to Microsoft and other huge corporations anymore.

 

[BULLWINKLE]

The operating system for Macs (MacOS) is definitely a more secure system since it is a closed system. Linux and Windows are both open systems so they are more vulnerable to the latest security intrusions (which is usually the reason for so many updates.) I agree Windows 98 was a good operating system because it allowed the end user to make whatever changes they wanted to make to the system. The latest Windows system is very restrictive essentially giving Microsoft control of what applications you run (more of a marketing ploy by Microsoft in my opinion....but that is a discussion for another time.) If I had to choose one system, I would go with MacOS.

I use a Mac system almost exclusively. And to me, Windows 7 and higher is not only not as secure as a Mac, but has a horrible interface. All the "bubble shaped buttons". Reminds me of the old AOL. Kind of an interface aiming for the 14 year old teenybopper market. They can keep it.

 

[penicillin]

These "Which OS is best?" discussions can be entertaining. Someday, people may realize that it is their data that matters.

As predicted. See above.

I gave up on Windows. They shouldn't have patches to fix bugs. They should be fixed BEFORE they sell their computers. Windows last decent operating system in my opinion was Windows'98.
I don't regret going to Mac, and I also have a Linux computer.

I wonder whether @BULLWINKLE remembers the bug where Windows 98 would crash every 49.7 days? It took many years to find it (in late 2001), probably because Windows 98 was so unstable that it usually crashed for some other reason before the 49.7 days had elapsed. The same bug existed in Windows 95, too.

Despite my snarky comment in the paragraph above, I respectfully disagree with some statements in the posts above, which perpetuate stereotypes and myths. All of the organizations behind the operating systems mentioned above have been through tough times and better times with software quality and security. All have learned much along the way. None have figured it all out yet. I would treat any claims about operating system quality and security with a healthy dose of skepticism. Whatever generalizations you may believe this year will be different next year.

My recommendation to beginners who ask me which operating system they should choose is:
-> Choose the same operating system that the person you will rely on for help uses.

 

[BULLWINKLE]

As predicted. See above.



I wonder whether @BULLWINKLE remembers the bug where Windows 98 would crash every 49.7 days? It took many years to find it (in late 2001), probably because Windows 98 was so unstable that it usually crashed for some other reason before the 49.7 days had elapsed. The same bug existed in Windows 95, too.

Despite my snarky comment in the paragraph above, I respectfully disagree with some statements in the posts above, which perpetuate stereotypes and myths. All of the organizations behind the operating systems mentioned above have been through tough times and better times with software quality and security. All have learned much along the way. None have figured it all out yet. I would treat any claims about operating system quality and security with a healthy dose of skepticism. Whatever generalizations you may believe this year will be different next year.

My recommendation to beginners who ask me which operating system they should choose is:
-> Choose the same operating system that the person you will rely on for help uses.

Not doubting you but when I had Windows 98 years ago, it never gave me any problems. Maybe I got lucky.

 

[sbwertz]

Sbwertz: I think that it should be up to the developers of Windows to find bugs in the code before release, not having "users" shell out their money on glitchy systems. Many years ago, I was working on a job giving support to users of AIX systems on high dollar medical equipment . I love Unix but I agree with you that Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on computers. Nice thing about Unix, they work well out of the box. Not for computer novices, but No blue screen of death, No files mysteriously vanishing etc.
As you say they aren't the most popular. They are expensive and they aren't for the computer challenged user. Apple has a very small share of the PC market. Sad thing is that anti monopoly laws don't seem to apply to Microsoft and other huge corporations anymore.

As a computer consultant, I agree with you 100 percent!

 

[TellicoTurning]

Not doubting you but when I had Windows 98 years ago, it never gave me any problems. Maybe I got lucky.

I never had any trouble with 98 either... I used Milenium at work and every one talked about what a terrible OS it was... never had a single issue with it and it interfaced with a dual Unix system in the mainframe. I've never used a MAC so can't say anything about them. My son is a programmer and loves his MACs, but uses Windows for his gaming.

 

[sbwertz]

Not doubting you but when I had Windows 98 years ago, it never gave me any problems. Maybe I got lucky.

Windows 3.1 was a great little OS. Windows 95 was FAIRLY reliable. Windows 98 was one of the most reliable, solid versions of Windows. Then there was ME (Millennium Edition). It was truly awful. Then XP which was actually one of the best versions. Vista was horrible, but Windows 7 was reliable. We won't even talk about 8 and 8.1. 10 was very buggy when first released, but after they got the bugs out it developed into a solid operating system. I haven't upgraded to 11 yet...still too buggy for me. In general the NT versions were a little more reliable than the standard versions. All in all, it made for a very INTERESTING computer consulting career.

 

[jrista]

Sbwertz: I think that it should be up to the developers of Windows to find bugs in the code before release, not having "users" shell out their money on glitchy systems. Many years ago, I was working on a job giving support to users of AIX systems on high dollar medical equipment . I love Unix but I agree with you that Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on computers. Nice thing about Unix, they work well out of the box. Not for computer novices, but No blue screen of death, No files mysteriously vanishing etc.
As you say they aren't the most popular. They are expensive and they aren't for the computer challenged user. Apple has a very small share of the PC market. Sad thing is that anti monopoly laws don't seem to apply to Microsoft and other huge corporations anymore.

Once you understand just how massive the overall codebase for "Windows" is, you'll realize how basically impossible it would be for Microsoft to find "ALL" the bugs before releasing. There is code involved in Windows that dates back decades, and there are countless libraries, frameworks and subsystems that exist that are installed only as necessary, not to mention the insane amount of drivers. The main Windows codebase is about 50 million lines of code.

This also speaks nothing about Microsoft Office, which is largely endemic in the Windows ecosystem, is another 30 million lines of code. There are other software packages frequently installed with windows, which overall amount to millions or tens of millions more lines of code...

We haven't even touched on the monstrous plethora of third-party software available for the Windows, which most likely amounts to billions of lines of code. With such a monstrous ecosystem, it is effectively impossible to avoid cases where various software packages don't like to work well together. Windows is a highly extensible platform, allowing software to hook into it, rather deeply if you (the user) allow it, it supports an incomprehensible amount of hardware (all of which have to have their own drivers), and the sheer number of possible interactions of one piece of software with another...well, I don't even think anyone has tried to compute that. Its probably on the scale of the number of neuron interactions in the human brain. Incomprehensible.

I have been a software engineer for decades, been programming since about 7 or 8, and I've at best worked on codebased with a FEW million lines of code, maybe 10 million...and that is extremely rare. Sadly, and this is coming from a consultants viewpoint...I go into companies and help them solve their internal problems with their software, development processes, release and other logistics management for software, etc. Sadly, MOST software is HORRIBLY coded, riddled with bugs, barely maintainable, sometimes just unmaintainable, frequently requiring nearly or wholly complete rewrites from the ground up (simply ends up being cheaper to start fresh, and do a better job from the get-go, than try to fix the horrid messes that most companies sadly have.)


Now...FIFTY million, which doesn't even account for all the lines of Microsoft code that runs on most people's computers, is beyond incredible. Shipping that much code "pristine" and 100% bug free is a literal impossibility. This is speaking with decades of software development and architecture experience.

The VAST majority of software ships with bugs. It is a simple equation of time vs. money...beyond a certain point finding and fixing the most obscure issues, especially those related to various interactions of drivers, libraries, frameworks and the countless pieces of software, becomes too costly to even consider. I have been using Windows, Mac and Linux for decades. None of them are perfect. Nature of the beast...software is really a PITA (says the software engineer! )

I can speak with great confidence that MacOS X is far from bug-free, and in fact in recent years its actually been getting worse. My brand new Macbook M1 Max shipped with OSX 12.2. Day one, it had issues. They redesigned a lot of it, and its BUGGY AS HELL. It tries to treat the entire operating system, and this is a "desktop" operating system, like a phone, so its constantly doing things in the background, burning battery power, constantly waking (even in the middle of the night...I hate completely shutting my system down as I'm always in the middle of things...frequently, my M1 Max will wake a dozen or more times in the night, turning on all my screens for about 30 seconds each time...I have to make sure I turn each one off completely to avoid that problem), and half of these new always-active features are riddled with bugs. They also completely redesigned their display system for the new Liquid Retina XDR displays, and that has also been a disaster. Every time the system sleeps, or even just locks, all of my windows get randomly distributed across my various desktops and displays (I have three 4k displays connected to my main work M1 Max). I have to reorganize every window every time I log back onto the darn thing... I'm on the latest version of OS X now, and they have still not fixed the majority of the issues they introduced with their new generation of hardware, Apple Silicon, and v12 of their operating system. I have been dealing with most of these issues for...well, pretty much since February this year when I got the new mac.

Its effectively impossible to find EVERY bug before releasing. I hate to say it, I loath these kinds of bugs, and these days I'm more affected by MacOS X 12 bugs than Windows bugs, but I hate them both. However as a software engineer, I know the challenges, and just how much time can be required to trace and track down obscure issues that result from the interaction of a lot of distinct and often third-party code. The cost is often IMMENSE, and in the end, I've never known any company to spend "whatever" time is necessary to fix every single bug. After a point, the cost simply becomes too great, at least until more information is gleaned (which sometimes occurs as more users report details about the bugs they encounter.) Its a sad reality...but, it IS a reality. And, as I said, I've at most worked on systems with several million lines of code, maybe 10...I've never been anywhere near the....50 million of windows, or 30 million of office....heck, there are probably a couple hundred million or more lines of code in all Microsoft software as a whole. I can't even comprehend trying to manage such an ecosystem. All things considered, IMO, Microsoft does a better job today, than they did back in the day...Windows 98, ME, and even NT 5 were all kind of disasters. Things got a lot better with Windows 7, a bit worse with 8, and better again with 10. Logistically, Microsoft's engineering teams handle the insane volume of code they have to deal with, coordinate releases around, and fix bugs and security flaws for, rather well...all things considered.

Apple used to do an excellent job as well...but, sadly, the more recent releases seem to be on a steady decline, as more and more bugs seem to be creeping into new releases of OS X. Sometimes they only exhibit on particular subsets of Apple hardware. One of the BIG benefits Apple has, that Microsoft does not, is a near-incomprehensibly SMALLER ecosystem. They only have to worry about their own hardware, and a much smaller ecosystem of drivers, apps, and third party hardware. That is a MASSIVE advantage...Microsoft has to worry about an effectively unbounded amount of hardware, software, and integrations.

Anyway...my take on the "they should fix it all before releasing" concept. IMO, its simply impossible. Even for Apple, despite the monstrous advantage they have given their much smaller and very rightly controlled ecosystem. FWIW, Linux has its issues as well. The unique thing about Linux is, unlike Apple or Microsoft, its maintained by an immense army of VOLUNTEER developers, plus numerous companies that help fund paid developers to work on it as well. When you have millions of developers who can field fixes for issues, they tend to get fixed faster. (Also FWIW, while this is a potential benefit of OSS, the vast majority of OSS projects are extremely niche, and can't benefit from the kind of dev resource mobilization that Linux can.)

 

[penicillin]

Once you understand just how massive the overall codebase ...

^^^^ This is 100% spot on. Jon has explained it exceptionally well. Read it twice.

 

[AllanS]

Another computer question. Just bought a new HP computer yesterday and so far love it. It has windows10. What I am noticing is that everyday there are a load of updates that need to get installed.

And my $0.02 as to the original question.

As has been mentioned numerous times, a lot of these updates are likely Windows getting caught up on it's back logged patches. However the era of needing patches chained right after another, well, it's not completely gone but it's far far better than it used to be.

But what you might also be seeing are the 2nd and 3rd party apps from others getting updated - possibly things like HP utilities, extra sound utilities, any pre-installed antivirus or security software, etc.

As for loading down the system with useless junk.... in my opinion the majority of the hardware vendor and third party stuff falls in that category. I haven't bought a HP in years so I couldn't point out specific items that I would consider to be crapware and I'm loathe to offer sight-unseen suggestions as to what to get rid of. (If 90% of what's preinstalled is bloat that means 10% of it is useful).

I will recommend this - anything that is asking for a credit card right now should be evaluated carefully. There is a solid chance that they will do the 'auto-debit' against your card every year, from here on out until looong after you've tossed this laptop into the scrap pile. 3rd party anti-virus apps are notorious for this.
Don't be afraid to uninstall anything that comes as a '30 day trial'. That includes any 3rd party antivirus app that may have come pre-installed as well. The native Windows app - Defender - is just about as good as it gets nowadays. Or rather again in my opinion any of the paid antivirus options no longer offer enough of a better value over Defender to be worth the cost.


And, as for backups, don't feel bad. There's an old chestnut in the IT world that goes your backups are only as good as your last restore.
We've ALL lost files to not backing them up and then we've ALL AGAIN lost more data because we trusted our backup solution and didn't validate it.

It's usually that second (or third, or fourth or n+1 where n is your tolerance for pain) time we get burned that turns us into backup zealots. I keep a reminder for myself that every 6 months or so I go and check that I can restore a file from either of my backup repositories.

 

[AllanS]

Once you understand just how massive the overall codebase for "Windows" is, you'll realize how basically impossible it would be for Microsoft to find "ALL" the bugs before releasing

Agree with all the reasons you mentioned above, but even with the completely thorough explanation you give I think you missed another additional difficulty that Microsoft has to deal with. Microsoft bends over backwards to maintain backward compatibility. I'm still running Winamp for one humorous and trivial example

The unique thing about Linux is, unlike Apple or Microsoft, its maintained by an immense army of VOLUNTEER developers, plus numerous companies that help fund paid developers to work on it as well. When you have millions of developers who can field fixes for issues, they tend to get fixed faster. (Also FWIW, while this is a potential benefit of OSS, the vast majority of OSS projects are extremely niche, and can't benefit from the kind of dev resource mobilization that Linux can.)

Charity built software comes with its own risks as well - a recent linux issue (I /think/ it was log4j related, but don't quote me on that) came about because the volunteers all just stopped working on the code and it just sat there abandoned for a looong while.

 

[BULLWINKLE]

Once you understand just how massive the overall codebase for "Windows" is, you'll realize how basically impossible it would be for Microsoft to find "ALL" the bugs before releasing. There is code involved in Windows that dates back decades, and there are countless libraries, frameworks and subsystems that exist that are installed only as necessary, not to mention the insane amount of drivers. The main Windows codebase is about 50 million lines of code.

This also speaks nothing about Microsoft Office, which is largely endemic in the Windows ecosystem, is another 30 million lines of code. There are other software packages frequently installed with windows, which overall amount to millions or tens of millions more lines of code...

We haven't even touched on the monstrous plethora of third-party software available for the Windows, which most likely amounts to billions of lines of code. With such a monstrous ecosystem, it is effectively impossible to avoid cases where various software packages don't like to work well together. Windows is a highly extensible platform, allowing software to hook into it, rather deeply if you (the user) allow it, it supports an incomprehensible amount of hardware (all of which have to have their own drivers), and the sheer number of possible interactions of one piece of software with another...well, I don't even think anyone has tried to compute that. Its probably on the scale of the number of neuron interactions in the human brain. Incomprehensible.

I have been a software engineer for decades, been programming since about 7 or 8, and I've at best worked on codebased with a FEW million lines of code, maybe 10 million...and that is extremely rare. Sadly, and this is coming from a consultants viewpoint...I go into companies and help them solve their internal problems with their software, development processes, release and other logistics management for software, etc. Sadly, MOST software is HORRIBLY coded, riddled with bugs, barely maintainable, sometimes just unmaintainable, frequently requiring nearly or wholly complete rewrites from the ground up (simply ends up being cheaper to start fresh, and do a better job from the get-go, than try to fix the horrid messes that most companies sadly have.)


Now...FIFTY million, which doesn't even account for all the lines of Microsoft code that runs on most people's computers, is beyond incredible. Shipping that much code "pristine" and 100% bug free is a literal impossibility. This is speaking with decades of software development and architecture experience.

The VAST majority of software ships with bugs. It is a simple equation of time vs. money...beyond a certain point finding and fixing the most obscure issues, especially those related to various interactions of drivers, libraries, frameworks and the countless pieces of software, becomes too costly to even consider. I have been using Windows, Mac and Linux for decades. None of them are perfect. Nature of the beast...software is really a PITA (says the software engineer! )

I can speak with great confidence that MacOS X is far from bug-free, and in fact in recent years its actually been getting worse. My brand new Macbook M1 Max shipped with OSX 12.2. Day one, it had issues. They redesigned a lot of it, and its BUGGY AS HELL. It tries to treat the entire operating system, and this is a "desktop" operating system, like a phone, so its constantly doing things in the background, burning battery power, constantly waking (even in the middle of the night...I hate completely shutting my system down as I'm always in the middle of things...frequently, my M1 Max will wake a dozen or more times in the night, turning on all my screens for about 30 seconds each time...I have to make sure I turn each one off completely to avoid that problem), and half of these new always-active features are riddled with bugs. They also completely redesigned their display system for the new Liquid Retina XDR displays, and that has also been a disaster. Every time the system sleeps, or even just locks, all of my windows get randomly distributed across my various desktops and displays (I have three 4k displays connected to my main work M1 Max). I have to reorganize every window every time I log back onto the darn thing... I'm on the latest version of OS X now, and they have still not fixed the majority of the issues they introduced with their new generation of hardware, Apple Silicon, and v12 of their operating system. I have been dealing with most of these issues for...well, pretty much since February this year when I got the new mac.

Its effectively impossible to find EVERY bug before releasing. I hate to say it, I loath these kinds of bugs, and these days I'm more affected by MacOS X 12 bugs than Windows bugs, but I hate them both. However as a software engineer, I know the challenges, and just how much time can be required to trace and track down obscure issues that result from the interaction of a lot of distinct and often third-party code. The cost is often IMMENSE, and in the end, I've never known any company to spend "whatever" time is necessary to fix every single bug. After a point, the cost simply becomes too great, at least until more information is gleaned (which sometimes occurs as more users report details about the bugs they encounter.) Its a sad reality...but, it IS a reality. And, as I said, I've at most worked on systems with several million lines of code, maybe 10...I've never been anywhere near the....50 million of windows, or 30 million of office....heck, there are probably a couple hundred million or more lines of code in all Microsoft software as a whole. I can't even comprehend trying to manage such an ecosystem. All things considered, IMO, Microsoft does a better job today, than they did back in the day...Windows 98, ME, and even NT 5 were all kind of disasters. Things got a lot better with Windows 7, a bit worse with 8, and better again with 10. Logistically, Microsoft's engineering teams handle the insane volume of code they have to deal with, coordinate releases around, and fix bugs and security flaws for, rather well...all things considered.

Apple used to do an excellent job as well...but, sadly, the more recent releases seem to be on a steady decline, as more and more bugs seem to be creeping into new releases of OS X. Sometimes they only exhibit on particular subsets of Apple hardware. One of the BIG benefits Apple has, that Microsoft does not, is a near-incomprehensibly SMALLER ecosystem. They only have to worry about their own hardware, and a much smaller ecosystem of drivers, apps, and third party hardware. That is a MASSIVE advantage...Microsoft has to worry about an effectively unbounded amount of hardware, software, and integrations.

Anyway...my take on the "they should fix it all before releasing" concept. IMO, its simply impossible. Even for Apple, despite the monstrous advantage they have given their much smaller and very rightly controlled ecosystem. FWIW, Linux has its issues as well. The unique thing about Linux is, unlike Apple or Microsoft, its maintained by an immense army of VOLUNTEER developers, plus numerous companies that help fund paid developers to work on it as well. When you have millions of developers who can field fixes for issues, they tend to get fixed faster. (Also FWIW, while this is a potential benefit of OSS, the vast majority of OSS projects are extremely niche, and can't benefit from the kind of dev resource mobilization that Linux can.)

My Mac is an older one. I'm going to use it until it bursts into flames. I have heard that newer versions are way less stable and have glitches. I am aware that there are millions of lines of code and that it's virtually impossible to have any computer that is bug free. I'm not blaming developers or making it personal. But what I see as a big part of the problem is:
New operating system releases at a ridiculous rate. New ones come out before the older ones are improved on. It's the company that does this. Planned obsolescence. Microsoft and Apple are both doing it. Much 3rd party software won't run on older computers, contributing to this. And "older" can mean just a few years. What became of the idea that simpler is always better ? I've never written for an operating system but I have written code. Since many coders are often involved in a project, it makes debugging more difficult. Hard enough to troubleshoot your own code but someone else's ? Used to anger me to no end that many never took time to add comments. I commented every line of code I added. Saves time in the long run as there's always changes to be made.
I realize that it's a Herculean task, but wouldn't it be better to make a system stable rather than constantly rushing new ones to market? End users in my opinion deserve something that works, not pouring money into multi billion dollar corporations that don't give a rats about selling a machine that has major issues (not just minor bugs).

 

[jrista]

My Mac is an older one. I'm going to use it until it bursts into flames. I have heard that newer versions are way less stable and have glitches. I am aware that there are millions of lines of code and that it's virtually impossible to have any computer that is bug free. I'm not blaming developers or making it personal. But what I see as a big part of the problem is:
New operating system releases at a ridiculous rate. New ones come out before the older ones are improved on. It's the company that does this. Planned obsolescence. Microsoft and Apple are both doing it. Much 3rd party software won't run on older computers, contributing to this. And "older" can mean just a few years. What became of the idea that simpler is always better ? I've never written for an operating system but I have written code. Since many coders are often involved in a project, it makes debugging more difficult. Hard enough to troubleshoot your own code but someone else's ? Used to anger me to no end that many never took time to add comments. I commented every line of code I added. Saves time in the long run as there's always changes to be made.
I realize that it's a Herculean task, but wouldn't it be better to make a system stable rather than constantly rushing new ones to market? End users in my opinion deserve something that works, not pouring money into multi billion dollar corporations that don't give a rats about selling a machine that has major issues (not just minor bugs).

Can't disagree with you about the rate of new OS deliveries. Its not just operating systems either...so much software is developed so much faster than it should be, it complicates the process of producing quality software. Something I face daily in my job, companies that have huge problems they need to solve, and neither enough time nor money to solve it well with software. So, they spend what money they have, on low cost developers, with overly tight deadlines...and the result is very buggy software. Too bad that billion dollar companies like Microsoft and Apple do the same thing!!

 

[BULLWINKLE]

Can't disagree with you about the rate of new OS deliveries. Its not just operating systems either...so much software is developed so much faster than it should be, it complicates the process of producing quality software. Something I face daily in my job, companies that have huge problems they need to solve, and neither enough time nor money to solve it well with software. So, they spend what money they have, on low cost developers, with overly tight deadlines...and the result is very buggy software. Too bad that billion dollar companies like Microsoft and Apple do the same thing!!

Many years ago, when there were bulletin boards online, internet in its infancy I would download programs on my 386. Days of the dinosaurs. I download a few programs that were developed by Russian developers. They were way faster than comparable programs developed here, so I thought about this. It's NOT that they were better or smarter. I attributed this to the fact that their hardware wasn't nearly as good as ours. If the wanted their software to work, they couldn't write bloated code. It had to be minimal and very concise. As our chipsets and hardware progressed, the focus on operating systems and software is to make it more complex than ever. I don't need for a computer to talk or perform functions I can do without a computer. I check email, pay bills, occasionally prepare a spreadsheet and create documents. Newer is NOT always better nor is it necessarily an improvement. What it is really is a way for large corporations to keep you spending money for features that you can do without. Like automobiles today. More to go wrong. If you can't manually roll your windows up, you are in no condition to be driving anyway. Simpler is better !!!

 

[penicillin]

For penturners without computer science backgrounds, it might be informative if you knew that conservative bug rate estimates range from 10 to 20 bugs per 1000 lines of programming code in a delivered software product. Yeah, even a low estimate of 10 bugs per 1000 lines of code implies a bug for every 100 lines of code that a typical programmer writes. Yeah, in the delivered product.

Don't panic, not all bugs are serious. Many will never be encountered in the product's lifetime. Very few can be exploited by hackers.

Speaking of Microsoft Windows, think about how many bugs are in those 50 million lines of code? At a very very optimistic rate of 10 bugs per 1000 lines of code, it adds up to a half million bugs in the Windows you are running now. I suspect the actual number is greater than that.

(Note: I made up that "10 to 20" range because sources do not all agree and I wanted to offer something realistic for the group here. Estimates vary widely, but rarely have I seen estimates below 10, nor above 50. There are very expensive development approaches that can reduce bug rates lower than that. They are typically used for "mission critical" software that is developed for NASA, the military, etc. Those approaches would never be used for Microsoft Windows or the typical software that most people here see. It would take much too long and be too expensive.)