Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Mar 2011 23:21 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 465283
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-14
A couple of possible reasons unrelated to complexity:
1) Because defective hardware is much more expensive to rectify than buggy software (think recalling hardware products as opposed to pushing out or making available software patches), hardware is tested far more vigorously in QC than software.
2) Microchip issues may be more common than you think, as often hardware issues can be worked around in software. How many people have had graphical glitches resolved by updating their graphics card drivers? What's to say those issues aren't in the silicon, and were just mitigated by workarounds in the updated driver?
These come from my personal experience developing hardware and firmware for medical equipment for a living...