Funny Bill Gates Interview

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Fri May 02, 2003 11:08 pm

This is old but funny...

<h3>FOCUS Magazine Interview with Bill Gates:
Microsoft Code Has No Bugs (that Microsoft cares about)</h3><h4>In this interview, Big Bill gets distracted and reveals his contempt for you, his loyal customer. </h4>Note: this page is also available in <a href="http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs-it.html"> ... no</a>, <a href="http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs-es.html"> ... ol</a>, and <a href="http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs-ja.html"> ... se</a>. In an interview for German weekly magazine FOCUS (nr.43, October 23,1995, pages 206-212), Microsoft`s Mr. Bill Gates has made some statements about software quality of MS products. [See <a href="http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html#exec">executive summary</a>, below.] After lengthy inquiries about how PCs should and could be used (including some angry comments on some questions which Mr. Gates evidently did not like), the interviewer comes to storage requirements of MS products; it ends with the following dispute: <hr><blockquote> <dl><dt>FOCUS: </dt><dd>Every new release of a software which has less bugs than the older one is also more complex and has more features... </dd><dt>Gates: </dt><dd>No, only if that is what'll sell! </dd><dt>FOCUS: </dt><dd>But... </dd><dt>Gates: </dt><dd>Only if that is what'll sell! We've never done a piece of software unless we thought it would sell. That's why everything we do in software ... it's really amazing: We do it because we think that's what customers want. That's why we do what we do. </dd><dt>FOCUS: </dt><dd>But on the other hand - you would say: Okay, folks, if you don't like these new features, stay with the old version, and keep the bugs? </dd><dt>Gates: </dt><dd>No! We have lots and lots of competitors. The new version - it's not there to fix bugs. That's not the reason we come up with a new version. </dd><dt>FOCUS: </dt><dd>But there are bugs an any version which people would really like to have fixed. </dd><dt>Gates: </dt><dd>No! There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want fixed. </dd><dt>FOCUS: </dt><dd>Oh, my God. I always get mad at my computer if MS Word swallows the page numbers of a document which I printed a couple of times with page numbers. If I complain to anybody they say "Well, upgrade from version 5.11 to 6.0". </dd><dt>Gates: </dt><dd>No! If you really think there's a bug you should report a bug. Maybe you're not using it properly. Have you ever considered that? </dd><dt>FOCUS: </dt><dd>Yeah, I did... </dd><dt>Gates: </dt><dd>It turns out Luddites don't know how to use software properly, so you should look into that. -- The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy a new version I ever heard. When we do a new version we put in lots of new things that people are asking for. And so, in no sense, is stability a reason to move to a new version. It's never a reason. </dd><dt>FOCUS: </dt><dd>How come I keep being told by computer vendors "Well, we know about this bug, wait till the next version is there, it'll be fixed"? I hear this all the time. How come? If you're telling me there are no significant bugs in software and there is no reason to do a new version? </dd><dt>Gates: </dt><dd>No. I'm saying: We don't do a new version to fix bugs. We don't. Not enough people would buy it. You can take a hundred people using Microsoft Word. Call them up and say "Would you buy a new version because of bugs?" You won't get a single person to say they'd buy a new version because of bugs. We'd never be able to sell a release on that basis. </dd><dt>FOCUS: </dt><dd>Probably you have other contacts to your software developers. But if Mister Anybody, like me, calls up a store or a support line and says, "Hey listen, there's a bug" ... 90 percent of the time I get the answer "Oh, well, yeah, that's not too bad, wait to the next version and it'll be fixed". That's how the system works. </dd><dt>Gates: </dt><dd>Guess how much we spend on phone calls every year. </dd><dt>FOCUS: </dt><dd>Hm, a couple of million dollars? </dd><dt>Gates: </dt><dd>500 million dollars a year. We take every one of these phone calls and classify them. That's the input we use to do the next version. So it's like the worlds biggest feedback loop. People call in - we decide what to do on it. Do you want to know what percentage of those phonecalls relates to bugs in the software? Less than one percent. </dd><dt>FOCUS: </dt><dd>So people call in to say "Hey listen, I would love to have this and that feature"? </dd><dt>Gates: </dt><dd>Actually, that's about five percent. Most of them call to get advice on how to do a certain thing with the software. That's the primary thing. We could have you sit and listen to these phone calls. There are millions and millions of them. It really isn't statistically significant. Sit in and listen to Win 95 calls, sit in and listen to Word calls, and wait, just wait for weeks and weeks for someone to call in and say "Oh, I found a bug in this thing". ... </dd><dt>FOCUS: </dt><dd>So where does this common feeling of frustration come from that unites all the PC users? Everybody experiences it every day that these things simply don't work like they should. </dd><dt>Gates: </dt><dd>Because it's cool. It's like, "Yeah, been there done that - oh, yeah, I know that bug." - I can understand that phenomenon sociologically, not technically. </dd></dl></blockquote><a name="exec"></a><hr><h4>Executive Summary:</h4>So...<ul> <li>Bug reports are statistically, therefore actually, unimportant; </li><li>If you want a bug fixed, you are (by definition) in the minority; </li><li>Microsoft doesn't care about bugs because bug fixes are not a significant source of revenue; </li><li>If you think you found a bug, it really only means you're incompetent; </li><li>Anyway, people only complain about bugs to show how cool they are, not because bugs cause any real problems. </li></ul>Straight from the horse's mouth. <a href="http://www.cantrip.org/">More information...</a>. <hr>(Not all software is as unreliable as Microsoft's. For example, PCs running <a href="http://www.ssc.com/linux/">Linux</a> often run for many months without need to reboot for any reason.) Text for this page is extracted from the RISKS archive: <tt><a href="http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/17.44.ht ... l</a>></tt>
This is the raw interview transcript (from which the magazine article was transcribed in German) kindly provided by the interviewer, Dr. Jürgen Scriba. The introductory text at the top is from <a href="mailto:brunnstein@rz.informatik.uni-hamburg.d400.de">Klaus Brunnstein</a>, as found in <tt><a href="http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/17.43.ht ... l</a>></tt>. (A big Thank You to Drs. Scriba, Brunnstein, Neumann, and Marshall for making this material available, to <a href="mailto:mb@italpro.com">Michele Beltrame</a> for the <a href="http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs-it.html">Italian translation</a>, to <a href="mailto:inaky@peloncho.fis.ucm.es">Iñaky Peréz Gonzáles</a> for the <a href="http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs-es.html">castellano translation</a>, and <a href="http://tanaka-www.cs.titech.ac.jp/">SHINYAMA Yusuke</a> <<a href="mailto:euske@cl.cs.titech.ac.jp">euske@cl.cs.titech.ac.jp</a>> for the <a href="http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs-ja.html">Japanese translation</a>.) If you maintain a web page, you are encouraged to make a link to this one. <hr>Send email: <a href="mailto:ncm-nospam@cantrip.org">ncm-nospam@cantrip.org</a> <address>Copyright <a href="http://www.cantrip.org/copyright.html">©</a>1996 by Nathan Myers. All Rights Reserved. URL: <http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html>

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:591, old post ID:4451

Chris Vogel · Post by **Chris Vogel** » Fri May 02, 2003 11:26 pm

Red, did you use HTML for that? If so, how?

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:591, old post ID:4453

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Fri May 02, 2003 11:37 pm

takahita_tsukino wrote: :roflmao2: :roflmao2:

Red, did you use HTML for that? If so, how?

Yes. html works on this board like you would do it in notepad. For example, here is some CSS tables:

<table style="border-style:solid;border-width:1;border-color:red" width="40">
<tr><td> blah blah blah</td></tr></table> <table style="border-style:solid;border-width:1;border-color:red" width="40">
<tr><td> blah blah blah</td></tr></table><table style="border-style:solid;border-width:2;border-color:#558822" width="80">
<tr><td> blah blah blah</td></tr></table><table style="border-style:solid;border-width:1;border-color:#000000" width="120">
<tr><td> blah blah blah</td></tr></table>

I like posting html.

But if you do a table and miss a few tags, it can really make a mess. lol

The trick is that in html when you have a return, it does not matter, but when you do it here, it does, so you can't just copy and paste the html from the webpage. But you can use this program I made, which I will post in the hidden frozen land now that I think of it...

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:591, old post ID:4454

Chris Vogel · Post by **Chris Vogel** » Fri May 02, 2003 11:45 pm

Thanks, Red.

The only reason I want to use HTML is for tables. Sometimes, a table makes everything much more readable.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:591, old post ID:4456

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Fri May 02, 2003 11:48 pm

Yep, and that's the main reason I put it. Like that sars post, it would of been long to post it without tables! Oh, and that program I was talking about, I decided to post it in the general section in case you want it.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:591, old post ID:4457