2 ms·

I've had way more problems with defective security and bugs from Microsoft than I have with ECC bit-flipping errors. I would rather have "regulators step in" an

I've had way more problems with defective security and bugs from Microsoft than I have with ECC bit-flipping errors. I would rather have "regulators step in" and nullify the disclaimer about "no fitness for any particular purpose" clauses in software license agreements. If I buy a windows computer and it gets hacked, I should be able to take MSFT to court (small claims if need be) and sue for damages (if I can show them) due to their negligence. They market PCs as these great tools for running everything in your life, but first they want release for any responsibility on their part. Those terms do not agree.

adrian_b 3y ago
The frequency of software bugs is what has allowed the hardware manufacturers to omit ECC from most computer products. Every time when a program crashes or remains stuck or data corruption is discovered, the user automatically assumes that this is a software bug. While it is indeed true that software bugs are really much more frequent than memory errors before the memory modules happen to become defective, in a computer without ECC the user can never know whether it has been a software bug or it was a hardware memory problem. So many memory errors remain hidden by the abundant software bugs, which in most commercial programs, especially in those from Microsoft, almost never generate error messages from which the cause of the error can be determined.