02-12-2002, 05:29 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 135
|
|
Why do we put up with unreliable Computers?
http://home.post-dispatch.com/channel/pdweb.nsf/text/86256A0E0068FE5086256B5D003DB47D
Dan Gillmore, noted technology pundit, writes, among other things, a syndicated column that our local paper picks up every Monday in the �Business Plus� section. This week�s column was, as the title suggests about the reliability of our modern computing systems. His prime example: a botched promotional gesture involving a wireless network, AvantGo software, and a few iPaq Pocket PCs.
�No one pointed fingers, at least not officially. Compaq may have been least blameworthy. The key software was from Microsoft, whose Pocket PC operating system powers the iPaq, and Hayward, Calif.-based AvantGo, which supplied a program to synchronize the devices with the central server computers. The Accenture consulting firm was the "systems integrator," responsible for putting it all together.�
�But Compaq's nameplate was on the iPaqs. So the company that helped create the personal-computer industry, and which has won deserved praise for the iPaq in other contexts, wound up with a public relations black eye.�
I think he�s got it right. Pocket PCs�and lots of other devices�are really great on paper assuming they work right, the thing is once you get them into the field they don�t always function exactly the intend for them to work. This inherently buggy nature of modern computing technology is unavoidable, and it�s something that is in desperate need of being fixed. I�d say get something 100% right before you work on making it 200% better. For example, ActiveSync, truly mobile input, and connection settings...need I go on?
This isn�t to say that I think the Pocket PC is a flawed idea, or that I think we should all go back to paper because it�s less buggy, I�m merely saying that as users of modern computing technology, we put up with a lot of reliability-challenged devices.
|
| |
|
|
|
02-12-2002, 01:51 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 414
|
|
PCs and Palms that work
I have been through Atari STs, Portfolios, Casio B.O.S.S.s, and many more. I think the Psion Diamond Mako I had last Summer for 4 months was the only one that never needed a hard reboot for any reason. Nope, now that I think of it the Brother PowerNote Notebook never ever acted funny in the least little way. So, it can be done.
At least on thing has improved. Almost none of them ever loose data, if you do need a soft reset and usually that is all that is needed.
Still, you would think that a company the size of Microsoft or Palm or Sharp could write an OS as solid as that on the Mako or Brother. Even if they had to ship them without any posibility of ever adding any software it might be worth it to have a computer that always did what it was designed to, every time.
Unlikely though.
|
| |
|
|
|
02-12-2002, 02:18 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 114
|
|
I think you just hit the nail on the head there. Obviously a lot of Windows problems come from the nebulous world of add-on software. There is just no way Microsoft as a profit-making company can test or take into consideration all of the possible configurations of a person's machine. True, we don't like the unreliability, but have MS release a statement that the next version will not allow us to run any 3rd party software and watch the rioting begin. Computer users are a fickle lot; we want the best of both worlds.
|
| |
|
|
|
02-12-2002, 04:27 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 88
|
|
Another problem is the amount of hardware available out there. There are some problems with 3rd party software stomping on the OS, but MS has sorta fixed that with Win2K and XP. But the main reason most computers crash is an incompatibility with a device driver. And since the PC gives you the flexibility to install Joe's Video Card next to Bob's Sound Card, I don't think there's a way to possibly test every configuration.
|
| |
|
|
|
02-12-2002, 04:32 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
PCs and Palms that work
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Timothy Rapson
Still, you would think that a company the size of Microsoft or Palm or Sharp could write an OS as solid as that on the Mako or Brother.
|
If the PC was as simple as a Mako or Brother, they could. The biggest problem with Microsoft OS stability is the complexity of the hardware they have to support. Apple has it easy - it's simple to make your OS play nice with video cards when you only have a couple brands to choose from. Microsoft has the unenviable task of having to make their OS work well with the newest GeForce4 cards AND some ancient 1 meg VGA card from 1994. Ditto for all the other old hardware out there.
But if Microsoft were to say "Ok, this next OS is ditching support for all PCI-based video cards, only newer AGP cards, because it's the only way we can make the OS stable enough for you", guess what would happen? People would start screaming "Monopoly power abuse!" and "Microsoft is in collusion with the AGP video card OEMs!".
Like someone else said, PC owners want it both ways. We want to have fast, stable systems, but we also want to be able to use cheap, crappy hardware and hobbyist shareware - and all have it work nicely together.
It's a tough thing to live up to!
|
| |
|
|
|
02-12-2002, 04:43 PM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
Jason, great reply. I'm a software engineer/developer: it is not easy to write bug-free software.
With respect to Microsoft, perhaps some of the blame is deserved: until recent operating systems, for example, i.e. WinNT, Win2K, and WinXP, they really marketed a non-OS (Win9x) which was really a GUI on top of DOS.
On the other hand, their attempt to maintain compability in the past was a large reason for the inherent limitations and instabilities. Win2k/XP are much less compatible with DOS apps, but at this point it's not a problem.
Last, WinCE is not unstable. I find it extremely stable. The tools bundled with it on the PPC platform are somewhat lacking. As to ActiveSync, realize it's not all Microsoft's fault. A lot of USB chipsets are severely lacking and have subtle incompatibilities and subtleties.
I'm not apologizing for Microsoft; it would be nice if people tested more instead of releasing new features all the time. But it's not like they're ignoring it completely, on the other hand.
Now, as to the dust problem... *sigh*
--bdj
|
| |
|
|
|
02-12-2002, 04:53 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 134
|
|
what?
For those of you that review PocketPC's i'm sure you reboot a bit more. I don't think I've even had to soft reset my iPaq since upgrading to 2002.
What they were trying to do in the article was a bit new and untested. The VAR messed up a bit trying to put it all together without enough testing.
If you don't load every game and Today screen addon into your Pocket PC they tend to be extreamly reliable. Why do you think Palm is so reliable? Just put 8meg of memory in the thing and you just can't put that much on it anyway.
|
| |
|
|
|
02-12-2002, 05:53 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 243
|
|
what?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AZMark
For those of you that review PocketPC's i'm sure you reboot a bit more. I don't think I've even had to soft reset my iPaq since upgrading to 2002.
|
The only times I've ever had to soft-reset any of mine are when I use badly written applications. I have the same problem on my Windows workstations. Crapware lives up to it's name, but most people would rather blame the OS than that trash they just installed.
|
| |
|
|
|
02-12-2002, 06:13 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 14
|
|
Rebooting and bugs
I think that bugs in software are things we all come to terms with and, subconsciously, work around. I remember how Win9x used to crash if you gave it too much disk active jobs to do at once.
When you learn the weaknesses in the devices you use, there's a natural tendancy (I think it's to do with being human - but then again, I've never seen a dog use a PocketPC) to adapt and work with it.
The 'out in the field' comments are so true! How often I've wanted to show off a lovely piece of functionality to someone only to have a crash at the wrong moment! But again, learning to work around them beforehand helps a heck of a lot. If I'm going somewhere where I know I'll need certain data for a mission critical task, I've learned to make sure I have access to that data before I leave. Sounds boring, but it does help.
These kind of bugs are bearable, IMHO. It's the ones that make a machine unbootable that make me weep and cry out in a loud voice "Woe! Woe! And thrice, woe!"
Maybe having bugs in software is our way of making computers more humanlike....... fallible.
|
| |
|
|
|
02-12-2002, 09:02 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BigDaddyJ
I'm not apologizing for Microsoft; it would be nice if people tested more instead of releasing new features all the time.
|
Aye, there's the rub...people want stability, but they get angry when Microsoft doesn't realease feature-rich applications fast enough. Things were much simpler before the Internet - it's warped the sense of space and time that people used to have...now we all want things RIGHT AWAY and don't understand why we can't have them. But I digress... 8O
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
