Jim,

>Terry,
>
>SNIP
>
>>
>>VFP is not a little program! Windows OSs are not little programs! The big surprise is that they have any stability at all!! By comparison, corporate IT projects are little programs - and they (too) are never bug free.
>
>I agree that VFP, the OSs, and lots of other software are not little programs.
>
>But I felt I got hints with Win2K, and even more strongly with XP, that MS (Bill G.) was realizing that they had hit the wall with present quality/test methodologies and that changes were underway that will lead to far better accuracy/reliability/performance in the near future.
>
>I suspect that MS will also realize that having such deep levels of semi-independent components (not COM) to get even basic things done is far more problematic than beneficial - just accounting for the varying versions/levels of each such component must lead to unimaginable permutations and combinations that need testing.
>
>I also suspect that MS has learned that "bug free" must always and continuously be the objective for anything they deliver. It really cannot be acceptable for MS to operate with any other objective and I'd bet they know that by now too.
>
>I really am always amazed when software errors are so wilfully tolerated when errors in virtually any other kind product are definitely not tolerated. My guess is that it is us, the developers, who are the primary proponents for this stand and it likely has much to do with our own needs to have ass-cover for our own problems.
>
>regards,
>
>JimN

I tend to agree.. And here's a case where the open source movement can help. It all comes down to the numbers of eyeballs and brains looking at and examining source code and by any estimation the 'free market' approach where more eyeballs & brains is better then fewer eyeballs & brains will always win out in terms of finding the highest quality.

It's a simple mathematical exercise IMO..