BG: "...no significant bugs in our software..."

[Waccoon]

Maybe you're not using it properly.

I really can't stand statements like this.  Properly designed software has obvious functionality.

Sort of like, "Read The F***ing Manual".  I can't remember the last time I used a computer that actually CAME with a manual!  Oh, that's right, you can always log into Internet forums, or waste hundreds of dollars of company money on tech support.  What's the point in hiring a few technical writers?

I have a box for Citrix Multiuser (for OS/2 v2.0), and it comes with six manuals, each in excess of 200 pages.  It's complicated, but nevertheless it's nice to have a hard reference.

Today, hardware comes with a packing list!   Software comes with instructions telling you how to turn on your computer.

Oh, the humanity.   :-D

[Waccoon]

Most software has bugs so what? the only point i see for this thread is to attack Gates for comments 8 years ago

I agree.  The problem is, Microsoft's priorities haven't changed much over the years:  Fix bugs after they surface with critical updates, rather than get it right the first time.

Of course, you can't really blame Microsoft for this.  The only way they can keep their grasp on the industry is to give the users what they want.  After the sucessful release of Windows95 (arguably the most bug-riddled OS release in history), what message did the consumer population give Microsoft?  How many people decided to stick with Win3.1?  How many MILLIONS of people ran out to stores and picked up Win95 the INSTANT it was put on store shelves?

Bill Gates is not a technician.  He's a salesman.

Microsoft is giving people just what they ask for:  fully-featured crap.  I use Win2000 because it's the most reliable Windows ever.  I have no intention of upgrading so long as Windows doesn't get any better.  I wish other people would do the same.

There is one quote from from gates that I remember that has not changed much over the years.  "I never think about the past.  I always look towards the future".  So, what did Vortexau say about repeating history?

[Waccoon]

Why not mention Amiga history? Amiga companies are the worst liars going but no one can mention that about wonderful honest Amiga companies.

For the same reason Amiga, Atari, and other financial flops didn't have very much influence on the industry:  If you can't make a profit, nobody cares what you did in the past.

Every time I see a documentary of the history of computers, the Amiga is never mentioned.  When I went to the Boston Computer Museum many years ago, they had prominent banners for IBM and Apple just about everywhere, but the Amigas (which ran half the displays in the museum), were all hidden and pasted over with cardboard and wallpaper.  Why bother glorifying a dead machine, or refusing corporate sponsorship?  It's only a museum, after all.

I think a lot of Amiga users quickly forget the early failures of the Amiga even before Commodore started losing mass amounts of cash.  We SHOULD be concerned about the past.  It is the only thing that is 100% certain.