Microsoft to Turn to Driver Quality Ratings System 333
QT writes "Ars Technica is reporting that Microsoft is finally trying to do something about PC driver problems. A new crash-report-driven Driver Quality Rating system will be used in Windows Vista to rate drivers. Drivers that rate poorly in real world use by users will lose their logo certification status, which would be bad news for OEMs and the device manufacturers themselves. Maybe now submitting crash reports will feel more useful? This is long overdue."
Bogus Crash Reports (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bogus Crash Reports (Score:2)
Re:Bogus Crash Reports (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about you (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I don't know about you (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I don't know about you (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't know about you (Score:5, Funny)
void pass_the_buck(void)
{
unsigned int *a;
for(a = NULL; *a = 0xdeadbeef; a++)
}
Re:I don't know about you (Score:3, Informative)
If they lose status then (Score:4, Interesting)
Is this the end of CD DRM drivers? (Score:5, Insightful)
This could be one of the greatest things ever, or another huge disappointment.
Re:Is this the end of CD DRM drivers? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what will probably happen is this: StarFor... oops, I mean "Generic copy-protection driver #3" crashes for some unknown reason. Copy-protection vendor's response? Oh, it was probably due to bad hardware or due to another copy-protection companies buggy driver interfering with our perfectly coded one. But you won't be able to verify their claim since the driver resists debugging and is encrypted!
So it's par for the course in this situation.
Here's the problem (Score:2)
Also I am unsure to what degree, but MS does require access to your driver for deb
Re:Is this the end of CD DRM drivers? (Score:4, Interesting)
Thought not.
This is different for say, a network card. THAT you would care about.
So, the RIAA types can do as they very well please with their driver malware seeing as it has zero impact on them if they lose a rating they never really had in the first place.
Re:Is this the end of CD DRM drivers? (Score:2)
Re:Is this the end of CD DRM drivers? (Score:2)
Re:Is this the end of CD DRM drivers? (Score:2)
Re:Is this the end of CD DRM drivers? (Score:2)
Re:Is this the end of CD DRM drivers? (Score:2)
You can also turn it UP, so that it gives you the "This is not certified" message, and removes the "continue anyways" option.
As for there being ways to work around it. I'm sure there are, but these should be picked up and blocked as HIGHLY suspicious activies by any antivirus product worth having. After all, surreptitiously installing a device driver, bypassing the users policies that prevent it amount to serious malware.
Not t
Re:Is this the end of CD DRM drivers? (Score:2)
I'm sure that really bothers them too.
Re:Is this the end of CD DRM drivers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ever used Microsoft's "Crash Analysis" tool? These Crash Analysis reports are what they're using to guage driver quality. If you've never used the tool, tak
Crappy SATA Driver (Score:3, Informative)
For the record I'm using a ECS KT-600A mobo with a VIA VT8237 sata raid controller.
I'm running Vista Beta 2 now on the same box with a driver from Microsoft and it is more stable then Win2k was with VIA's SATA driver.
Now that is sad.
Does Microsoft need to be doing more to ensure the quality of the drivers running on their operating system? You bet.
Re:Crappy SATA Driver (Score:2)
In most cases MS's hardware drivers are quite reliable even if they omit cutting-edge features from the more complicated pieces of hardware, like video cards. In that case they let you get u
Re:Crappy SATA Driver (Score:2)
I believe that MS simply wants to discourage enthusiasts from building their own home PCs with parts of Newegg. Everybody's junk should be treated equally.
Re:Crappy SATA Driver (Score:2)
Looks like a Mac is the only solution to the problem as you see it; buy both the hardware and software from the same manufacturer.
Re:Crappy SATA Driver (Score:2)
And believe it or not Microsoft is the one to blame if they are logo certifying the hardware and/or drivers.
Re:Crappy SATA Driver (Score:2)
Good for them, will it work? (Score:3, Interesting)
Good for them to try to do something like this, but will it work? After all, aren't all major PC manufacturers generally shipping parts by good companies (ATI, nVidia, Creative, Intel, etc.)? I'm not sure this will do much there, but for the end user market it may be quite a bit better. The only question is how you would rate all those companies that sell nVidia cards and just repackage the drivers. Do they get nVidia's rating since it's their driver, or do they get a lower one since they take longer to package updates?
Driver manufacturers can't exactly be trusted though. Read this story [msdn.com] I found today on a MS weblog.
I know the modem in my computer is necessary for boot-up.
Re:Good for them, will it work? (Score:2)
I had to downgrade my driver for a MSQL Microsoft quality lab certified driver to prevent crashes and improve performancen when I upgraded my systems video card to a 6600 last fall.
I have very loud popping noises on my computers with sound blaster lives when I play midi's.
One problem there. (Score:2, Interesting)
Also how long before some hardware company resorts to spyware tactics so people can't click the "submit crash report" button?
Re:One problem there. (Score:2)
Re:One problem there. (Score:2)
I know what I will do (Score:4, Interesting)
This include any driver which add a tray icon app. Do we realy need that each wireless card vendor bundle its own wireless configuration software?
Yes, I know you don't have to use it, but most people think they do. Try to explain to the average joe why there is TWO icons displaying the status of his wireless connection. Or that changing the color settings of the monitor depends on the video card driver.
When I bought my cheap 3.5'' USB SD/CF card reader, I didn't know that it needed a special software to work. At last in Vista I will be able to mod them -1 bad driver.
Re:I know what I will do (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been configuring computers to use the crap OEM wireless config utilities, only because MS's util is even worse. In particular, MS's tool doesn't show a list of all the WAPs in range; instead, it will just pick one for you.
I wish I didn't have to do this, especially on newer Dell Latitudes. With those (can't remember if these particular ones have Dell or Intel wireless) a big popup comes up every couple fscking minutes alerting you that there's a WAP nearby, wouldn't you like to connect? Now, you can turn off the onboard wireless with a physical switch, but that's different from how everyone else does it, so lusers must be Edjumicated. At least I don't deal with PhDs, heh.
Re:I know what I will do (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know which MS OS your university uses, but XP certainly does. If you connect to one of the WAPs then the next time you boot it will try to automatically reconnect to the same one, but you can still get the list from the MS util. I agree with you about the 'WAP nearby' message, that is annoying if you've got no intention of connecting to one - it even pops up when you've already got a wired connection, which seems pretty dumb
Sabotage ? (Score:2)
I never submit crash reports to MS (Score:2, Insightful)
First off, you have no control over the data going to MS. I presume they tell you that it is only driver-specific and doesn't reveal anything about you, but do you really believe it? They lied about what their mediaplayer reports when it phones home - they could be lying about what goes into a crash report.
Presuming they are honest - they could still be mistaken, would not be first time that the marketing side didn't talk to the technical side eithe
Re:I never submit crash reports to MS (Score:2)
Re:I never submit crash reports to MS (Score:3, Insightful)
I do in Vista, because then MS will be able to easily note programs that don't work with Vista. They can then determine if they broke compatibility by accident or if it's the program's fault, and perhaps even alert the program vendor to the problem before the final version of Vista ships.
XP crash reports are fully viewable, if I recall. I turned them off in my XP because there's really no point, as far as I can see. With Vista however, it's beta software, so I can see the use of it. It already has bee
The hardware world is a disaster... (Score:4, Insightful)
What we really need are some standard reference models for PCs, and (this is critical) we need hardware manufacturers to stop treating driver interfaces as intellectual property and completely, totally OPEN their interface for software developers. Of course, like I said above, people vote with their pocketbook, and people don't seem to get that worked up about this. They'll continue to buy nVidia or ATI or whoever because the cards really do have great performance, and they'll just suffer with the problems that come with proprietary interfaces. I mean, it's amazing to me - when I buy hardware, it should be OPEN. What you did under the hood is one thing, but how the system interfaces with it - OPEN. My old retro computers came with SCHEMATICS, for crying out loud.
OK, I'm off my soapbox. Just don't think that the driver world will get any better this way, because it won't. Until we're dealing with known, documented hardware and a more elegant driver architecture, a crashin' we will go.
Re:The hardware world is a disaster... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, in a good architecture the system would just kill the video process and restart it. And even if it fails to restart it, I don't want my lose unsaved data because my system dies, one can always remote desktop/ssh to it and save the stuff.
Re:The hardware world is a disaster... (Score:3, Interesting)
If you expose the functionality of Bob's wireless ethernet card, some asshole is going to write a driver that allows it to send signals over illegal frequencies. Then Bob Wireless Company gets sued by some other company whose product is getting interfered with. Now, it might be possible for the hardware maker to prevent that by making the hardware 'smarter,' but then they have to make a different version for every region (France uses different frequencie
Why should a bad driver crash an OS? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, for performance reasons it may be advantageous to let a driver have free access to the hardware. But I don't see any logical reason why it has to be that way... just as I don't see any law of physics that says memory leaks and buffer overruns are unavoidable.
But, why, exactly, should a faulty display driver, say, cause any fundamental problems? Why doesn't the operating system intervene? Why shouldn't a driver malfunction just cause a brief screen flicker... followed by the OS detecting that something improper has happened, followed by a driver and hardware reset, continue merrily on its way? Yes, I do recognize that a driver that is directly fundamental to a system's own operation--specifically a disk driver--is likely to be more difficult. Still, disk drives are fundamentally unreliable at the analog level, but layers of CRC checking and bad sector remapping hide the problems almost completely. Why couldn't this be true at the disk driver level? So that a bum driver causes only a performance loss and some retries, not total disaster?
As with so much of modern PC practice, this seems to be a case of "because we've always done it that way." It is convenient for Microsoft to point fingers elsewhere, but in the final analysis they are responsible for the user experience. Instead of painting a scarlet letter on bad drivers, why don't they design the OS to tolerate them better?
Re:Why should a bad driver crash an OS? (Score:2)
Re:Why should a bad driver crash an OS? (Score:4, Interesting)
Some driver bugs can be averted by moving drivers into user mode - this is especially true for drivers that do not talk to hardware directly, but these are not interested cases. Drivers which do not talk to hardware (e.g. drivers for USB devices) should not be in the kernel in the first place, so it is just a case of bad design.
The interesting and important drivers are ones that do talk to hardware. Unfortunately they are the ones that cannot be made completely safe. A driver can program its DMA controller to overwrite the entire system RAM, or it can set the device up to lock the bus. There are ways to avoid these problems (with significant increase in cost and complexity), but not in PC hardware - it is simply not worth it. Would you rather have a PC which hangs up once every week, or one that costs ten times more ? If you answered the latter, then you don't need a PC!
The subject of microkernels has been discussed to death. I think that everybody agrees that microkernels are slower, so it becomes a question of economics again: People would you rather have a PC which crashes once every week that one which is twice slower.
Lastly, I am going to say that in my opinion microkernels increase complexity disproportionately, and complexity leads to bugs, so they are not a scalable solution. Of course this point is debatable.
Re:Why should a bad driver crash an OS? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why should a bad driver crash an OS? (Score:2)
You have answered your own question. The answer is: performance.
This will NOT work (Score:3, Insightful)
Too much nonsenical data. (Score:2, Insightful)
On paper, it sounds pretty good.
But, to me anyway, here's why it may not work:
1. It presumes the problem is faulty driver coding. Does it take into account other applications open at the time? What about tricky conflicts? I've been around enough to
Re:Too much nonsenical data. (Score:5, Informative)
1. It presumes the problem is faulty driver coding. Does it take into account other applications open at the time? What about tricky conflicts? I've been around enough to see MANY applications that kill drivers, like Word causing video driver crashes. Who's fault?
Yes, it does account for other applications open at the time. If you look at the data that will be sent to Microsoft, you will see (among other things) a process list. That aside, drivers shouldn't crash, regardless of any requests that applications may make of them. If an application is causing a driver to crash, the driver probably missed a bounds check, screwed up its state machine, or who knows. Something that should be caught and handled, in any case.
2. Will Microsoft pore over all this data? Drivers crash for
3. Will the data contain enough information for the OEM, who really gets a bunch of MS-formatted data, get enough real information to solve the problem?
These two questions contradict each other. In #2, you say that there will be too much information. In #3, you are worried that there won't be enough. Which is it? Either way, you should take a look at the contents of an error report sometime; they are quite detailed, just not in plain english. From those 7,500 crash reports, there are definitely going to be some common function pointers that the driver developers can use to look up the offending functions, their arguments, and the state of the other registers on the machine. While the information looks cryptic to the average user, it is very useful to those who can map that hexidecimal data to source code.
4. According to TFA, this only works on the "Premium" edition of Vista. In that version, drivers have to be certified. If "Premium" proves to not be a best-seller, how many OEMs will bother with certification? I still have to click through "non-certified" dialogues in XP today.
Certification does more than just avoid the silly "non-certified" dialog box. Certification isn't cheap; companies who spend the money to go through the certification process have at least shown some commitment to driver quality by getting a third-party to verify best practices. I believe that getting your driver certified also allows you to use the "Certified for Windows" logo on your product, which (probably) has some sway with customers.
I feel Windows has some blame in regards to probs. (Score:3, Interesting)
I've never updated my computer drivers via Windows Update. My boss recently asked me why and I showed him on a spare laptop we had.
First of all, Windows kept saying that there where updated drivers for the onboard Realtek AC97 sound card. Problem was, the updated drivers where for the C-Media AC97 drivers. The sound card didn't work when I updated them to the ones Windows recommended.
Then (the big one) Windows kept saying there was an updated driver for the USB mouse I was using (A A-Open Optical Openeye Wheelmouse). The driver it recommended was a A4-Tech driver or something.
Oh boy, did I have fun after that was installed.
I installed the recommended mouse driver and restarted. Instant blue-screen. So I tried to get into safe mode to rollback the driver. Blue screen while booting into safe mode. So now I have to try and recover (or reformat) this laptop due to a dodgey windows update.
My boss was amazed at what Windows Update had done. Why does Windows say there are updated drivers available that don't work? I know better than to trust WU for drivers, but I still have the average home user coming up to me asking why their computer has gone bad after loading the latest windows updates (I tell everyone who asks, only use WU for the critical windows updates, that's all)
Who is to blame for this? The average computer user has no idea what devices are in their computer (Hell, most of them still call the moniter the computer and the computer "the box"). Why does Windows seem to ignore what's listed as installed and working in Device Manager?
A good motivation (Score:2)
So, this means (Score:2)
So this means that in Windows Vista, we should see driver installers with screens declaring:
"Don't like our drivers? Dial 1-800-EAT-SHIT!"
will feel more useful? (Score:2)
a driver must have been released and in use for at least 120 days
The fact that Microsoft is publicizing this now means the fix was in at least twelve months ago. Anyone with enough market leverage already has their sundry ratings certified on gilt edge legal stock, regardless of quality.
Microsoft has not revealed the exact met
What about power supplies? (Score:3, Insightful)
I still have not figured out why but I have seen people spend several thousand on motherboard, cpu, ram, video cards, hard drives etc but they will put a $40 power supply in the box and then pissed at windows, ati, nvidia, amd, intel etc etc when the system crashes fairly often. The same can be said of cooling.
The other leading cause seems to be stuff like the internet security programs. Darned if I know exactly how they do what they do but they seem to be adept at crashing computers. There are quite a lot of programs that try to hook into how windows operates, screw with drivers etc. From what I understand most of the copy protection stuff you see tries to hook into the cd, ide, etc drivers to try to enforce what it is doing. So if the system crashes does the cdrom driver get nailed or does starforce or whatever other copy protection that screwed things up get nailed? This kind of stuff is actually a good reason to stay away from the games that have almost any copy protection. It is one the reasons I like the MMO style of games. Most of them have no copy protection at all and they don't try to do weird things to windows, play with drivers etc.
So while I would like to see crappy drivers get nailed I suspect that what will end up happening is that the wrong drivers will get blamed since ati, nvidia etc will play by the rules but companies like starforce and other drm stuff won't.
a matter of mutual respect (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is stingy with their knowledge. They release only what they want on their terms in their own way as they please. I can't, in good conscience, participate in that sort of relationship---one where I give everything I have to help them make a better product and they in turn give back just enough to justify charging me for the 'right' to lease (because software ownership is apparently so 90's) their software back. If I'm lucky, the software I've leased back from them may possibly have a fix to the problem I reported or it may not. Depending on the problem, I may never know. It's not like I am privy to their code or even their coding methodology. I will give to Microsoft to the extent that they give to me. And for the record Microsoft never 'gave' me anything. I have no investment in seeing them succeed under their current model.
In contrast, when I submit a bug report to a Free software project, I get the name of a guy assigned to the bug, I can log in and see the bug tracking discussion, the fix is there for me to review, the new version with fix included is given back to me free of charge and free of stipulations. I feel like a real participant in the process. I feel like Gnome's success or Evolution's success is both partly to do with me and directly beneficial to me.
Submitting bugs to Microsoft feel the same to me as submitting CD track info to CDDB. I give them info, they charge me to get it back.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/ [digitalelite.com]
Re:'Long overdue'...or 'same shit, different day'? (Score:5, Funny)
I can see it already. Six months after Vista ships the iPod will be flagged as the worst device and lose it's windows certification.
Re:'Long overdue'...or 'same shit, different day'? (Score:3, Insightful)
Assume two devices are identical, drivers and all. But they are sold under two different brand names with different popularity levels...
The more popular one will recieve more bug reports, therefore, have a higher probability of being considered bad (on multiple levels).
So, in effect, assuming even one bug for the iPod exists, with 70% of the total market (according to wiki) it will be the worst MP3 player!
Re:'Long overdue'...or 'same shit, different day'? (Score:2, Interesting)
This was seen before (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:'Long overdue'...or 'same shit, different day'? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:'Long overdue'...or 'same shit, different day'? (Score:2, Interesting)
But they're already certified by Microsoft, which is supposed to mean something. Since they're asking you to submit bug reports on drivers they've already certified, it makes you wonder just what the point of driver certification is, if not to ensure driver quality.
Re:'Long overdue'...or 'same shit, different day'? (Score:2)
Re:'Long overdue'...or 'same shit, different day'? (Score:2)
Re:'Long overdue'...or 'same shit, different day'? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:'Long overdue'...or 'same shit, different day'? (Score:2)
If a driver is certified to adhere to the API, and still crashes the system, the problem lies in one or more of three possible places: the certification is bogus, the API is flawed, or the underlying OS is buggy.
Microsoft is responsible for all three of those.
Re:'Long overdue'...or 'same shit, different day'? (Score:2, Insightful)
People seem to be suggesting that MS should be making a singular judgement for every driver, whether it is certified or not. Come on, any of you who know anything about software development know that that's absurd, especially since they're not MS's drivers in the first place.
You can't expect any sort of soft
Re:'Long overdue'...or 'same shit, different day'? (Score:2)
Re:'Long overdue'...or 'same shit, different day'? (Score:3, Insightful)
A much better analogue in the Linux world would be if Linus moves a driver into his version of the kernel and it crashes the system - in which case, yes, Linux (the OS) has egg on its face.
Re:'Long overdue'...or 'same shit, different day'? (Score:3, Insightful)
In the end I like it because either way, somebody is going to be held responsible. At least if the ratings are easy to understand and not obfuscated or marketdroided.
Re:'Long overdue'...or 'same shit, different day'? (Score:2)
I agree ... the abuse by competitors bit was my first thought.
But what about drivers that worked fine, then started crashing after an update? Why should they be penalized for something M$ screwed up?
Re:'Long overdue'...or 'same shit, different day'? (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I don't really mind testing Linux drivers...but when it comes to an OS I have to shell out money for, I kinda expect it to work.
I can already see it, HP taking the top scores in their cheap multifuncionals and printers.The drivers are being written by OEM and non-Microsoft affiliates. It is unreasonable to think that it is Microsoft's responsability to test and debug third party drivers.
Re:'Long overdue'...or 'same shit, different day'? (Score:2)
Re:'Long overdue'...or 'same shit, different day'? (Score:2)
Microsoft can justifiably be expected to certify that a) the driver acts as they are told it should (eg: supports features X, Y and Z, but not P and Q) and b) the driver conforms to the documented specs of their API (ie: isn't making any calls to undocumented functions).
They can not be expected to certify driver stability on arbi
You don't make any sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You don't make any sense (Score:3, Informative)
Good point, except that history doesn't back you up. Microsoft has always gone out of its way to blame drivers or 3rd-party software for its own quality / stability problems.
Remember, Microsoft is one of the most hated companies for a reason ... they didn't get that way overnight. It took a couple of decades of abuse, and its going to take a couple of decades to win people back ... if they ever start making an honest effort to. Just look at the LIES on open document standards wrt Massachussetts (or howev
Re:You don't make any sense (Score:5, Interesting)
If it was almost anyone else, there wouldn't be any argument. History, in the sense that Microsoft has always worked to blame others (Lotus, Corel, Netscape, so many printer manufacturers) for problems that are caused by Microsoft policies, works against trusting them:
Like I said, anyone else, this wouldn't be an issue. But they LIE so many times. Look at the latest spyware - the WGA tool that phones home every day, and all the lies they told about it, and continue to tell about it. This is someone you'd trust?
Re:You don't make any sense (Score:2)
They've blamed drivers in the past whe the problem was with the poor design of Windows itself. For me its not an issue ... linux runs all the hardware I use just fine ... but I know people who are still in the process of "my next computer will be either a Mac or Linux" and they think that problems are a normal, daily occurance.
Re:You don't make any sense (Score:2)
Parent is Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Parent is Troll (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I do think this system is a good idea. If anyt
Re:Parent is Troll (Score:2)
Not that this is an approach without flaws, either, mind you.
Re:Parent is Troll (Score:2)
The question of abuse is a very interesting one. I can't imagine how they can solve it reliably, since obviously it is unsolvable: hypothetically I could submit cras
Re:Parent is Troll (Score:2)
Re:'Long overdue'...or 'same shit, different day'? (Score:2, Interesting)
No, most drivers are written by 3rd parties. And exactly how are these involuntary? They are user-submitted!
Go read up on Watson
Re:'Long overdue'...or 'same shit, different day'? (Score:2, Insightful)
In this circumstance, is it reasonable for fraud to only be prevented to 'some degree'? We are talking about the vast majority of PCs. Even a small degree of fraud will screw a lot of people.
And also, if I've paid for my hardware, I want to use it. I do not want my software vend
Re:'Long overdue'...or 'same shit, different day'? (Score:2)
I don't see this system working at all. First, who would trust MS to provide accurate data? Does anyone really think MS will bit the hands that feed them? Maybe for small OEM's MS will release valid data about how bad a driver is. However I have my doubts that MS would publically release data about how crappy ATI drivers are, or how crappy some the drivers are for an HP All-in-one, or...
I agree about not wanting to waste time being a beta tester for MS. I don't mind testing, submitting bugs, etc f
Re:'Long overdue'...or 'same shit, different day'? (Score:3, Informative)
The driver company doesn't need the source code to the OS to "build a proper driver". Indeed, it's far more likely to end up with a *worse* driver that depends on undocumented features and/or breaks with every minor OS revision if they *do* have the source code.
Re:Oh I wonder wonder who ohhh who... (Score:2)
Re:Oh I wonder wonder who ohhh who... (Score:2)
Re:Oh I wonder wonder who ohhh who... (Score:2, Funny)
RTFA, it's about device drivers, not low level components.
Since we're going to be technical AND troll at the same time:
1. Your math works out to $5000, not $300,000.
2. It's spelled unforeseen.
3. You forgot a paragraph break between the quote and your text, a question mark after the word poorly, not to mention the lack of visits from our friend Mr. Comma.
4. You missed the required "OMG M$!!!!!" at the end of your message.
5. No lottery numbers.
I'm
Re:My OEM computer can temporarily become useless? (Score:2)
Re:My OEM computer can temporarily become useless? (Score:2)
Re:My OEM computer can temporarily become useless? (Score:2)
Re:My OEM computer can temporarily become useless? (Score:2)
There is no penalty for using unsigned drivers, other than the fact that you run the risk of them being unstable. Run dxdiag.exe and check the tabs, you might find that you're using an unsigned video driver right now.
The only ones who would be REALLY inconvenienced by this are the OEM guys,
Re:My OEM computer can temporarily become useless? (Score:2)
Starting with 64-bit Windows Vista you will not be able to run unsigned kernel-mode drivers at all. Also, signed drivers do not in any way guarantee stability.
Re:It's a little worrying... (Score:2)
To falsify this, you'd have to reverse engineer their error reporting scheme.
Re:It's a little worrying... (Score:2)
Re:It's a little worrying... (Score:2)
Re:It's a little worrying... (Score:2)
Re:Kudos! (Score:2)