The truth about computer bugs

Although small armies of testers check software before it is released, bugs still get through. But consumers are still well served, even by Microsoft.

Recently, Windows 7 was released to much fanfare and considerable media spin. People camped outside stores to be first to own it and reviewers fell over themselves to get the first copy out.

The general buzz on the street is that it is pretty good; most users seem to like it and so far there hasn't been any of the vinegar that accompanied Vista's release.

However, industry experts are still recommending caution, which, as it turns out, may have some foundation.

We should wait 12 months before upgrading, or at least until the first Service Pack is released, because the most serious bugs will be fixed by then. The anti-Microsoft brigade, which breaks cover at every Windows launch, never fail to charge Microsoft with foisting bug-ridden software on us too soon, whether it is done for marketing reasons - perhaps to beat a new version of a rival company's operating system - or simply because they are too greedy and lazy to get everything well-sorted before releasing it.

The truth is that all software has bugs. Any decent code cutter will tell you most applications run fine with bugs, much in the same way that most aircraft fly with cracks and other structural defects in their airframes. Vendors know about these issues but unless they specifically cause problems, like the plane falling out of the sky or Windows being vulnerable to hackers, they won't waste manpower fixing them.

Software makers are usually coy about their products. Vista reportedly boasts about 50 million lines of code and you can bet something in that lot doesn't quite work as designed.

If something is critical, to be fair, Microsoft are usually quick to do something about it, though in the past they have made some curious decisions on how and when they fixed some of the better-known issues. The fact is that long before we got to boot Windows 7, an army of so-called beta-testers were hard at work reporting and logging problems they uncovered in pre- release, beta versions of Windows 7.

I have beta tested a lot of software and find it enjoyable, though to most it is incredibly boring. There are benefits though; much of the software I use has been gifted because I gave my time and experience for testing and vendors are often happy to reward volunteers, whether we test or just help out in their support forums. It is a shame that testers are often regarded as the lowest form of coder, probably because many start their coding careers by testing; they are actually vitally important.

A good testing team will see that no application is released without being as ready as it can be. Mac users often gloat over how stable Mac OS is and how it never crashes, probably because it is very well tested by a large and dedicated team, though in all fairness it only has to run on a handful of hardware configurations, as opposed to Windows, which is expected to run stably on thousands, if not millions, of possible hardware permutations and combinations.

It's a miracle Microsoft can achieve anything like that level of compatibility, though I'm sure the tall poppy-choppers will always be quick to slam Microsoft should something not work properly.

By the time Windows 7 reaches us, you can rest assured it has been pretty well wrung out and is completely usable; any really important bugs will, I am certain, be fixed in the fullness of time.

- © Fairfax NZ News