[nitinreddy88]

It depends. Some bugs can be fixed easily and some might be too complicate to fix even though it looks simple. Usually all critical bugs are attended as soon as they are created (few hours delay). But the actual fix depends on the bug and there is no general formula for that

[test1235]

>assuming that the fix is just a few lines of code

[kybernetikos]

Even assuming that, there could be a massive testing load to ensure that those few lines of code don't mess up something tangentially related, or cause new security issues of their own.

[simion314]

Assuming you just need to add a check for null pointer and that this bug is very critical like hackers are exploiting it, assume engineers create a fix and are 100% it is safe, hopefully there was no other component that was depending on the broken code , how much it will take to fix it, maybe there is somewhere a history of critical bugs , with the date of when it was found and when it was fixed then we can find the time interval.

[city41]

The Windows kernel is one of the most mission critical pieces of software in the world. And is easily the most important piece of IP for MS. I'd argue there's no such thing as a "simple fix". I have no doubt even the most trivial of changes has to be very thoroughly vetted.

[kybernetikos]

I've worked on software where without fail every new release would go through more than a week of soak testing.

[cmdrfred]

Microsoft fired it's QA department so that doesn't seem to be a reasonable explanation either.

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2878026/microsoft-to-bu...