Originally Posted by WrestleEwe
We have to find a way so that consumers will demand products that are properly tested before they leave the factory.
Not to pick a bone, but I've now worked with two software testing teams for two big-name companies. Both of which are relevant to the products discussed here. Anyway
... software testing is a prohibitively complicated task. To develop complete and comprehensive test coverage for every class and every module of every program released with something the size of OS X is unthinkable. It would delay products and raise prices far beyond what consumers would tolerate.
The cracked-up test scenarios I've seen that are relics from ancient bugs are... ridiculous. "Copy a 512MB file with exactly 500 characters in the name across AFP; ensure transfer completes." Even with 100% coverage through unit-testing, it's impossible to predict the random, uncanny corner-case scenarios that maybe two
users will encounter when certain components interact in a very specific, very quirky way. Complete test coverage just isn't going to happen.
From a vendor standpoint, it's a matter of mixing time-to-market with quality and letting the consumer decide if your mix is the best of the available options. Right now, I think Mac OS X is doing pretty well, even though it's not perfect. Microsoft, on the other hand, has some serious time management problems, and it remains to be seen if Vista has serious quality issues. It's not yet in wide enough distribution/use to make a good call.
I see what you're saying, but there's a reason the market has never sustained a vendor who focused on absolute perfection. Some of us just try to get really close.