A less crashy Windows? Microsoft is trying

COMMENTARY--If Microsoft could do them all over again, they'd probably do them differently.

I'm talking about drivers, those pieces of software that sit between Windows and your hardware. Bad drivers--and it's easier to write a bad driver than a good one--can play havoc with your computer system in all sorts of unexpected ways.

Take, for example, the driver than connects your network card to the Windows OS. It may work just fine on its own. But another piece of software, far removed from the network interface, could still somehow mess up that network driver and bring your computer to a halt.

When that happens it's only natural to blame the operating system. "Damn Microsoft," we say, perhaps waving a fist at the computer.

Microsoft estimates that 15 percent of all "blue screen of death" (BSOD) Windows crashes are caused by faulty drivers. Yes, that leaves another 85 percent caused by other things. But Microsoft sees drivers as low-hanging fruit in its push to make Windows XP even less crash-prone than it already is.

At a Microsoft technology road show recently, I saw one of the ways the company hopes to make safer drivers. It's an automated test system designed to run the drivers through a much wider range of potential problems than human testers--still an important part of the process--could ever handle alone.

While not yet available, that testing software will eventually find its way, in one form or another, into Microsoft developer tools, allowing programmers to test their driver code as it's being written.

This is part of an overall Microsoft approach, to make its Visual Studio .Net better at finding and solving problems in the development process, before they find their way into finished projects and onto users' systems.

Microsoft already has a driver certification programme in place. But too few hardware vendors take part in it. You'll notice this for yourself when you install a new piece of hardware on your XP machine and the OS warns you that the driver hasn't been tested.

Now, like everyone else, I always click "OK" and load the driver anyway. But I'd be much happier if the software had been through a Microsoft test process, and I didn't have to worry.

Of course, I never worry about drivers on my other computer, the Mac. And that computer hardly ever crashes. While it's true the Unix underpinnings of OS X are part of the reason for this, it's also true that even pre-OS X Macs were less crashy than their Windows cousins.

Why? Partly because of one of the chief differences between Apple and Microsoft: Apple is a monopoly. Sure, I know a court says Microsoft is one, too. But in this case, I'm talking about Apple having control over the operating system, many of the applications, all the hardware, and some of the peripherals, of which there aren't so many in the first place. This gives Apple such tight control of its platform that, in some ways, it's hard to believe it could ever crash at all (and it hardly ever does).

For Microsoft, creating a bomb-proof OS is much more difficult, simply because Microsoft doesn't control as much of the platform as Apple does.

Microsoft is hampered by its need to maintain backward compatibility with older applications and hardware. Even for new apps and add-ons, Microsoft can only send out descriptions and sample code of how everything should, in theory, work. But at the end of the day, Microsoft can't force third-party developers to write compatible code. Sure, it'd be in the best interest of those developers to do so. But the quality of their work still sometimes leaves a lot to be desired.

I know that none of this will make you feel any better when you're staring at a BSOD and some lost, unsaved work. XP may not crash as often or as severely as previous operating systems (remember Windows ME?), but it still occasionally falls over dead.

But when you shake your fist and curse the machine, try to remember it isn't all Microsoft's fault. The company is doing what it can to help hardware vendors write better drivers. Perversely, if it's successful, MS will have no one to blame for the occasional crash but itself.

Do you think Windows will ever be as stable as the Mac? TalkBack below or e-mail edit@zdnet.com.au.

Advertisement

Talkback 7 comments

    Thank god for "System Res ...Anonymous -- 22/04/03

    Thank god for "System Restore" ;)

    You've got to be kidding. My ...Anonymous -- 22/04/03

    You've got to be kidding. My PC running Win 2000 Pro is rock solid. The Mac has been comparatively held together with bandaids.

    Wilst it might now be on a stable core with OS X, Mac people (particularly in publishing) have still got a lot of pain to ensure.

    Strange, since Windows 3.51, I ...Anonymous -- 22/04/03

    Strange, since Windows 3.51, I have been working in mixed Windows/Mac environments and Windows were always more stable than then the current Macs. Am I in a parallel universe or something?

    OK, fair enough, improving dri ...Anonymous -- 22/04/03

    OK, fair enough, improving driver quality will improve the general quality of the platform: every little bit helps. However what I think needs an overhaul is the whole basic approach.

    I use both Linux and Windows at work and home, and one of the things that bugs me about Windows is not it's general reliability (although that is annoying) but what it does when it has a problem.

    When my linux machine has a problem, the component/program that has the problem dies/hangs or whatever. So then I have to kill it and restart it. But the system stays up.

    The reason that people blame the OS when the issue is the driver (in those 15%) is what MS does with the problem. Whenever something goes wrong, your whole OS falls over.

    I know this situation has improved in later versions (indeed even in NT at work its better than 98 at home) but it still exists. If MS fixed the basic stability issue, users would get an altogether better experience. Plus MS would get the bonus of: 'oh my network driver died' as opposed to 'oh windows killed itself'

    Admittedly there are some things that'll take down the system (eg hard drive driver), but most things don't have to.

    Just because the OS is indepen ...Anonymous -- 22/04/03

    Just because the OS is independant of H/W doesn't necessarily lead to instabilities. Eg Look at Linux, FreeBSD.

    What the root cause of the problem is is Microsoft rushing OSes to market before they are fully tested.

    I'm sure the bloatyness of Windows doesn't help.

    Besides, if a driver fail, the OS should be able to cope with that and shutdown or restart gracefully.

    "... it's also true that ...Anonymous -- 22/04/03

    "... it's also true that even pre-OS X Macs were less crashy than their Windows cousins.""

    Actually, that is wrong.

    I had a Macintosh with System 8.5.1 and the system would crash almost every boot. System 8.6 was a little more stable but still was prone to crashing. This made Windows 98/ME look increadably stable and ran more smoothly.

    From experience, System 9.0 onwards seem to be stable.

    At the moment, I think WindowsXP and MacOSX are about equal except with the Mac, the software and hardware are made by Apple whereas a PC is not ie Microsoft the OS and another company the PC.

    Who are you Kidding!!! I run a ...Anonymous -- 29/04/03

    Who are you Kidding!!!

    I run a print service bueau and we reboot our W2K platforms on average once every 3 months. The Mac's crash/require a reboot at least twice a day.

    It has been this way since NT 3.51 and doesn't seem to have changed with O/S X.

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • David Braue Can not-so-smart meters help the NBN?
    It was interesting to witness Conroy's recent enthusiasm to spruik the NBN's role in supporting the Smart Grid, Smart City initiative. What a pity that Conroy hadn't yet seen the damning report from the Victorian auditor-general about that state's smart-meter roll-out.
  • Array Can the Telco Reform Act be win-win?
    In the second of our two programs looking at the Senate Inquiry into the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill, we hear from shareholders, bureaucrats and industry groups.
  • Array Has New Zealand's smiling assassin delivered?
    One year into its tenure, how has the new New Zealand Government performed on issues of technology and telecommunications?
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured