>SNIP
>>
>>It is impossible to test every possible combination of every new feature with everything all users have and configured the same way. IMO, the collection bug is something that should have been caught earlier. Considering the amount of testing that went on inside MS, the official beta sites, and the public beta. But, given the number of people that were testing VFP8, it just enforces my point that testing is difficult and not everything can be caught before release.
>
>Your last sentence is a true non-sequitur! That there was a high number of people tesing VFP has absolutely NOTHING (repeat: NOTHING) to do with either the difficulty of testing or catching everything before release.
>
>If the testing is 'difficult' then steps should be taken to reduce the difficulty AND/OR more test time should be allowed to accommodate the difficulties AND/OR the calibre of the testers ought to be confirmed AND/OR more people should be seconded to the testing effort.
>
>Everything has a much higher chance of being caught if (non-comprehensive list):
>1) Setting an objective to test 100% of the code and earnestly working toward it even in the knowledge that 'it is impossible' (because it surely WILL be impossible if one starts out with that premise!).
>
>2) Taking product-knowledgeable people and tasking them with identifying all of the permutations and combinations of conditions that can arise in the product.
>
>3) Taking those same people, and possibly other of less product knowledge, to devise a thorough and comprehensive test plan for each condition identified.
>
>4) Tasking people, under detailed control, to execute each and every test plan and to report all outcomes.
>
>5) Addressing each and every test outcome that does not conform to spec.
>
>6) Evaluating the proposed "fix" for poor outcome(s) and ensuring that ANY of the prior test plans that are implicated are tasked to be run again regardless of their previous outcome(s).
>
>7) Repeating steps 4 - 6 until the list is exhausted or management decrees termination of efforts.
> - ALL uncompleted tests at that point must still be completed some time in the NEAR FUTURE regardless of the product being in delivery status.
>
>You can have thousands of people working on testing a product, but if their efforts are uncoordinated/unplanned and if positive outcomes are not tracked along with negative outcomes then all you have achieved is to have occupied lots of people's time. In terms of quality of the test effort you have NO IDEA if testing was done to 7% or 37% or 87% and that serves no one! Yes, it can be stated that product xxx was the most severely tested product ever, but the truth will be that "severely" is defined as the most manpower expended and nothing else. It certainly saya ZERO about the QUALITY of the testing.
>
>>
>SNIP

Jim;

I have been working with computers since 1962. My first experience with Mac was in 1985. I live about two miles from Apple in Cupertino. Because of a professional organization I belonged to we met at Apple Headquarters on De Anza. One day they took us to one of the many buildings in the neighborhood. This one had a Cray computer, which was used to test and approve any software used by the Mac. I have no concept of the details of how this worked but I have noticed that Mac’s do not crash and burn or require rebooting to “solve problems”. Nor do I notice service packs being released by Apple to “fix problems” with software - even software that Microsoft created for the Mac!

Perhaps there is just a different way to do business in the PC world. Since 1986 when people have asked me, “What type of computer should I buy”? I ask what the computer will be used for. Then I will normally say, if you like to “play with a computer” buy a PC. If you want to run your office buy a Mac. :)

Tom