and I am sure Microsoft have more money/resources invested than Boeing & Airbus combined
There is no comparison between the type of engineering Microsoft does (general purpose computers, consumer and business, huge number of operating modes, unimaginable combinations of hardware and software) and Boeing/Airbus does (single purpose, limited operating modes, known hardware/software).
AnthonyGA, sorry, you lead me to believe you might be in IT but know little about designing, engineering and testing embedded aviation software.
Verification and certification processes were designed for mechanical systems, not ones and zeroes.
Verification and certification of aviation software bears resemblance to mechanical systems processes in what way? Both Boeing and Airbus (and the vendors who supply software and hardware to them) operate with verification systems designed from the ground up,specifically for these applications.
Systems that mix software and hardware are still tested and verified as if everything were hardware, and that lets lots of potential bugs slip through the cracks
Please explain? Do you mean hardware without software - i.e. useless or are you saying mechanical systems, or avionics without software? Either way, please explain what you mean. I can see no parallels between testing airborne software and mechnicals.
No more likely to have an unknown bug in software than a design fault in mechnical systems - do a little research into how these systems are designed and engineered.
Would I rather travel in a mechnical aircraft or FBW? Actually, never crosses my mind. Both are demonstrably far safer than any other form of travel I use by far. And of course, safety just keeps getting better - including FBWs and other computer controlled a/c.
Finally, I'd be interested to hear how 3 different programs, written by entirely separate teams (with no knowledge of each other) running on different hardware can have the same bug? Design error yes (see above re mechnical systems) but bug? Any idea of the chance that 2 entirely separate systems can both get it wrong, at exactly the same time whilst the 3rd, entirely separate system gets it right?
Move along there, nothing to see...