PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft and GM :D


digimushu
22-06-2004, 08:30 AM
Food for thought...

At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated: "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving twenty-five dollar cars that got 1000 miles to the gallon." In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating: If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:

1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.

2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to buy a new car.

3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason, and you would just accept this, restart and drive on.

4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn, would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.

5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought "CarXP" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.

6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable, five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run on five per cent of the roads.

7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.

8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.

9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.

10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key, and grab hold of the radio antenna.

11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete this option would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50% or more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the Justice Department.

12. Every time GM introduced a new model car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine

jiinjoo
24-06-2004, 10:24 AM
I think it is true that the tech industry went way too fast in the last decade. Good thing is thet bubble burst early before more bad things get created. Now that the dust has settled, the computer industry can start building good stuff, hopefully reach the car industry's level of reliability soon.

There's also a difference in focus, you can't compare MS products and GM's products since errors in the latter can kill. Notice that none of the life critical systems uses Windows (I hope...)

masterof_none
24-06-2004, 10:37 AM
digimushu is from Virginia Tech!. Did you get a peek of your supercomputing facilities? :)

hmm, feels great driving a car powered by the sun.

digimushu
24-06-2004, 10:55 AM
Hi there
yeaps,..system X

But they have taken it apart to create a newer/faster computer
sigh..
i guess having the world's third fastest supercom is not enough..
(and i thought i could use it for my thesis...darn!)

digimushu
24-06-2004, 10:57 AM
jinjoo:
I hope i don't get an error message one of these days asking me to send an error report to microsoft
:D

masterof_none
24-06-2004, 11:30 AM
yeah, I heard that they're building the new supercomputer dubbed 'Big Mac'. don't know if they can defeat the second (or even the earth simulator??). can't wait to hear the result. (pretty sure there's an update in the upcoming wwdc).

anyway, the strike contrast between GM and MSft is that, msft needs developers, but GM doesn't. the source of the problem come when msft try to make developers happy by hacking their own code and make sure that the apps run on the oldest win that you could possibly get. Lots of nice documented in Raymond chen's weblog (http://weblogs.asp.net/oldnewthing/).

so, it would take forever for Microsoft to get their major release done if it want to maintain the backward compatibility. (longhorn :2006?)

but the great thing for developers : they can sometimes run the same apps that they develop on DOS on Win XP.

this is a good reading:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

digimushu
24-06-2004, 11:46 AM
However...more and more of our car's software is being developed for engine control, TCS, ESP and ABS. My undergrad senior design was writing software and developing electronic suspension control modules for the 2003 Ford Explorer... even then, people are already using networked control systems in the car using the CAN and/or TTP protocol.

Yep, our car is becoming more computerized. One time i think Ford had to recall some cars..cant remember the model to upload a patch to the Engine control*wince*

As i say:

The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.


That would really suck...

luke
24-06-2004, 08:03 PM
this is a good reading:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
An interesting paragraph from the article for masterof_none :D

(I know, I know, at this point the 2.3% of the world that uses Macintoshes are warming up their email programs to send me a scathing letter about how much they love their Macs. Once again, I'm speaking in large trends and generalizing, so don't waste your time. I know you love your Mac. I know it runs everything you need. I love you, you're a Pepper, but you're only 2.3% of the world, so this article isn't about you.)

masterof_none
24-06-2004, 08:12 PM
Heh,Joel on software is wrong. That article is definitely also for me. (Of course, I don't bother sending him email saying how much I love my Mac).

digimushu, care to share the network car concept pointed by you just now?. I'm interested.

digimushu
24-06-2004, 08:25 PM
Well..
If you have heard of X-By-Wire technology, you will know of Drive by wire, brake by wire, throttle by wire. there are 2 types of networks that are employed in cars presently to implement 'by wire' technology.

CAN - used by BMW, can be used in bus or 'star' architecture. currently very heavily used in German cars and industrial applications

TTP - a network protocol created in Austria. It is used in aircraft mostly for fly by wire technology.

They both do the same thing. we have many smaller modules 'talking' to each other, exchanging info with each other and with the main controller.

The main issue now is how fault tolerant is the network? How much time is it to correct a data packet with error? I'll leave the rest to your imagination
hehehehe..hope i was not too technical