Adobe Troubles (longer)

[Lance Van Nostrand]

This wasn't intended to be as long as it turned out so my apologies up 
front, and computer literac;y is not a requirement for pattern flying, but I 
have a few points to bring up about computer systems that might change your 
mind.

When software does not work as intended it is not usually the operating 
system.  There are thousands of product development teams out there and very 
few operate using design controls that are repeatable much less optimized. 
What's more, product testing before release is often glossed over or poorly 
planned.   Writing software for the desktop requires quite complex testing 
plans.  There are many many variants of operating system configurations that 
are legitimate (XP, 2000, NT, which service pack, what combination of 
hotfixed or malware patches, there are even a lot of software packages that 
install specialized versions of OS components that could not be retro tested 
against everything else - something that is common in shareware).  It can be 
a risky thing to install shareware or complex products that were written by 
some smart guy in his home. If you've ever done this, your OS may have 
latent problems.  Also, the many brands of virus scanners can really mess up 
a product install by preventing the installation of part of the application 
(and the stupid installer doesn't flag this as an error).  Norton is 
especially notable for this.  Windows XP has some improved protection to 
guard against improper OS modification.  If the installer is not certified 
by microsoft, and it somehow manages to install replacement OS files 
(certain critical ones) the OS will replace the errant file with the correct 
one (it keeps an OS copy in a hidden cache).  Adobe is notorious in the 
software industry for buggy, unreliable, poorly documented and inconsistent 
software.  Even their flagship Photoshop product requires printer driver 
manufacturers to build in "accommodations" because they don't follow all the 
windows rules.

Operating systems are hosting environments that need to be much more 
reliable than the software that runs on them.  An OS is an amazingly large 
and complex beast and getting it right means planning and building 
reliability in from the start.  Microsoft has finally figured this out and 
has been moving in this direction for several years.  Starting with Windows 
NT their reliability has made quantum jumps in reliability.  But NT and W2K 
are really just debugged versions of old architectures.  Windows XP Pro (not 
home) is another quantum leap forward and the next major release will be 
much better yet.  did you know our government has given MS $25 million 
dollars to add to their budget for reliability testing (this was about 18 
months ago)?

I'm not a MS lacky, but after careful evaluations of linux, solaris, and 
windows my company has selected all three for various projects, but mostly 
we use Windows now.  We build very reliable software medical systems that 
require FDA approval.  Most of these systems are very large and must run for 
months without needing a "reboot".  Nearly all the problems we find are ours 
or in the software toolkit from a vendor and many of these problems are not 
found right away.  When we find an MS problem (rarely), they never commit to 
fixing it so we must redesign or work around it.  In the end we produce a 
reliable product.  In our experience, Windows is reliable when it is running 
reliable software.  MS has the largest software development force in the 
world, and possibly the best funded. They will continue to outspend and out 
manpower their competition.  Even if you hate their business tactics and 
their knack for making bad copies of others ideas and marketing them as 
their own (which I hate) you can't deny that they will be around long after 
we are gone.

I can't say that for most companies that I get software from, including 
Adobe.  Bottom line: bugs can be anywhere in code to make it not work. 
Chances are it is in the application or the installer supplied by the 
vendor, not the OS.  This statement couldn't be made in the Windows 98 days 
(a total piece of crap) but it can be made now.  You have to update your 
thinking as reality changes.

--Lance
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Van Putte" <vanputte at cox.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: Adobe Troubles


>
> On Mar 25, 2005, at 8:29 PM, Bob Pastorello wrote:
>
>> Well.... here's what I did, and it fixed itself....Opened Adobe 7. 
>> UNCHECKED "Display in browser".  "OK" (ran a windows self-installer). 
>> CLosed Adobe.  Opened IE.  Tried to read pdf., no good.  While IE open, 
>> opened Adobe 7 from "Programs".  CHECKED "Display in Browser", clicked 
>> OK. Window self-installer ran again.  Reopened web .pdf.... it worked.
>>
>> Makes NO sense.  But is a Windows product.
>
> I used to be in an all-Macintosh office.  We had a sign on the door that 
> said, "Congratulations Windows 98.  Almost as good as Macintosh 88."
>
> Ron Van Putte
>
> =================================================
> To access the email archives for this list, go to
> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
> 

=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.