Slashdot Mirror
Are Windows 7 Testers Going Unheard?
nandemoari writes "Windows 7 beta testers are disputing whether or not Microsoft is taking notice of their feedback.
The dispute follows a blog post by Steven Sinofsky, the man in charge of engineering Windows 7. He notes that in one week in January Microsoft received data through Windows 7's automatic feedback system every 15 seconds.
According to Sinofsky, it's impossible to keep everyone happy. That's partly because there are only so many changes Microsoft can make to the system and still finish it, and partly because in many cases testers often have opposing views about a feature."
I think that's his way of saying "We can't make all the users happy so we're going to do our best to make sure none are happy."
I suspect there is a big difference between unheard and ignored!
And frankly do we care...
Users: No drm!
RIAA/MPAA: drm!
"Kernel 2.8.1 beta testers are disputing whether or not the linux community is taking notice of their feedback. The dispute follows a blog post by Linus Torvalds, the man in charge of engineering Kernel 2.8.1. He notes that in one week in January the linux community received data through Kernel 2.8.1's automatic feedback system every 15 seconds. According to Linus, it's impossible to keep everyone happy. That's partly because there are only so many changes the linux community can make to the system and still finish it, and partly because in many cases testers often have opposing views about a feature."
I thought SP1 was the actual beta, as always.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Newest changes coming in the RC http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/26/some-changes-since-beta.aspx
Libera te ex Inferis!
Truly, Microsoft must employ master debaters and cunning linguists to come up with these schemes.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Does that mean that the users "oppose" the management decision to keep a crappy feature?
Or perhaps the users think it should get fixed and management says 'screw the users, ship that pig?
I don't think so!
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
How about the litany of major usability issues that Windows has had for years that MS wants to constantly ignore? Especially given that Gates has sent memos out criticizing the Windows team, and they still don't address these issues.
Usability took a big step backwards with Vista, and most of those issues haven't been addressed in 7.
I'm not sure they were will. Is 7 better than Vista? Yes. Is 7 better for enterprise users when paired with Server 2008? Certainly. Is 7 better than XP for Home users? Not really. Don't believe the hype.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
According to Sinofsky, it's impossible to keep everyone happy. That's partly because there are only so many changes Microsoft can make to the system and still finish it, and partly because in many cases testers often have opposing views about a feature."
That is the first smart thing I've heard anybody from Microsoft say in a long, long time.
Maybe. But I do think that customer feedback is crucial to Microsoft at this point. And I think they know that. They really can't afford for Windows 7 to get the same public backlash that Vista got.
My blog
Of course it was. It was "Mojave" open to the public. Been saying that all along. But I also have to agree with the pragmatic answer to the question about whether or not Windows7 testers are being ignored. I tend to believe that if the feedback opposes "the plan" whatever that may be, the feedback goes ignored and if the feedback is a compatibility issue, they will likely consider it and weigh it against opposing factors such as what compatibility breaks or complicates.
There is nothing inherently evil or bad about this approach in my opinion.
Microsoft doesn't really care what a bunch of 'Joe plumbers' have to say about their OS. They have a QA department for that.
QA doesn't do software testing.--Microsoft has a Software Test Engineering department for that. QA just makes sure every group in the company follows the right processes.
I think Microsoft has taken their basic desire to keep control of their products from the hands of those that would redistribute (with or without modification) to the point it has become an annoyance. There must be other ways to go about protecting your product without constantly harassing and then blacking out unregistered copies. Alerts of all kinds, not just these, had become only a slight annoyance in XP. They're now moving in the direction of inappropriate.
I don't want to be yelled at constantly by my operating system.
sudo apt-get lost
Really, I think we'd all prefer if they released a finished product that wasn't buggy as all get out- sure, it may take longer to finish it, but we've learned that good products sell better once they're released than shitty products that are released too soon.
microsoft.... q/a.... hahahahahahahahaha. You're a funny one.
I thought sheep always lived in herds?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
FTFA:
To date, we have fixes in the pipeline for nearly 2,000 bugs in Windows code (not in third party drivers or applications) that caused crashes or hangs.
Yet the trolling headline screams "ZOMG, M$ doesn't listen to users!!!"...
But wait, there's more!
To date, we have recorded over 10,000,000 device installations and over 75% of these were able to use drivers provided in box (that is no download necessary). The remaining devices were almost all served by downloading drivers from Windows Update and by direct links to the manufacturer's web site. We've recorded the usage of over 2.8M unique plug-and-play device identifiers.
2.8 million pieces of different hardware, and over 7.5 million installations had all drivers included, "almost all" could be downoaded easily. No matter what you think of Microsoft, that information is pretty much astonishing.
As someone who vigorously feedbacked Windows Vista and many of it's bugs and UI issues (some of which were addressed after release, some in Windows 7 and none at all), I can say that Microsoft doesn't listen to their beta testers. I was in an IRC channel discussing a wireless bug with some other beta testers, at least 9 of us feedbacked it, and were dismayed that the bug still existed in release, one year later.
they should just give freedom of choice:
...and partly because in many cases testers often have opposing views about a feature.
Confucius say: "Man who associates with smarter men than himself is smarter than the men he associates with."
Dear Microsoft!
I liked the desktop effects. Please implement the POSIX standard though.
regards,
beta tester
Realy?? These job descriptions beg to differ.
But their mistake is in allowing too many beta testers. They knew it would be impossible to handle the volume of feedback. They wanted the positive PR, plus the ability to say, "Sorry, we're too busy" to a lot of the requests.
A better beta test would have been more restricted so all feedback could be considered. They're obviously not interested in hearing all the feedback.
Developers: We can use your help.
I know this will be an unpopular viewpoint here on /., because I'm praising Vista over XP, but here goes...
I will not upgrade from Vista to Win7 -- simply because of the downgrade in the taskbar. I participated in the beta program, and I actually sent feedback asking them to bring back the quick launch bar and allow processes to be ungrouped. I included a long explanation of why their current implementation hurts my workflow, and I explained that I would consider it a ship stopper issue.
p.s. I used XP as my primary OS since Jan 2003, and then I started using Vista some starting in mid-2007. At first I didn't like Vista, but it grew on me, and I finally retired XP and switched to Vista full time last November.
QA doesn't do software testing.--Microsoft has a Software Test Engineering department for that.
So what the hell do they need beta testers for? Oh wait, buzz, marketing, free slashdot advertising, etc... sorry...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Haven't you noticed the stepped up astroturfing? They've about got it covered.
Caveat Utilitor
Since even Bill Gates is unhappy with the product experience on Windows, and they ignore him, what makes you think they're going to listen to Win 7 Testers?
He owns the company.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
That's funny, I read this blog post from Microsoft today that detailed some of the changes made since the beta, all thanks to feedback from said beta.
It's quite a sizeable list and apparently only a small amount of the changes made so far. Considering nobody outside of Redmond (With the exception of a few select partners) is supposed to have access to anything other the beta, who's actually making the claim that the feedback is falling on deaf ears? Sounds to me like Microsoft IS actually listening for once.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Microsoft hasn't done a great job of explaining to the millions of people who've tested Windows 7 that the beta stage is more about catching problems than significantly changing the way the system works.
My impression has always been that alpha testing is for determining whether or not to continue with an approach, and beta testing is for exercising the system to weed out sufficient bugs to continue with a final release. The beta testers complaining sound like they just went in with unreasonable expectations.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
George Bush does not care about Windows 7 testers.
So what the hell do they need beta testers for?
For broad spectrum testing. You think it's easy for a team of Test Engineers in a company to test every single possibility on every conceivable platform? For something as far reaching as a consumer operating system, it's a great idea to get thousands of people to do the basic hardware/software compatibility testing and others for you for free.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
In the early 1990's we started instrumenting Word and learning about how people actually used the software (this was before the internet so this was a special version of the product we solicited volunteers to run and then we would collect the data via lots of floppies).
Appreciate all your effort in creating the internet.
*clap* *clap* *clap*
[John]
Shit better not happen!
Oh the irony: "truthsearch" pulling stuff out of his a$$ instead of searching for some truth. How about reading about some of the feedback and the changes from it:
http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/26/some-changes-since-beta.aspx
Sometimes the truth is written by Trolls as well.
I used Windows 3.1 then switched to 95 about 10 years back and then switched to Windows 2000! You guys are way, way, way behind!
They really can't afford for Windows 7 to get the same public backlash that Vista got.
And yet, it will. News are made today, not reported, and the media found out with Vista that "new OS by redmond monopolist sucks" makes for more headlines, better headlines, over a longer time period, than "next windos version exactly as expected".
The media will eat them, because they're sharks and they can smell blood.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Release more versions of Windows 7, that way everyone can get exactly what they want.
QA doesn't do software testing.--Microsoft has a Software Test Engineering department for that. QA just makes sure every group in the company follows the right processes.
Probably just sloppy nomenclature. In some other companies, test engineering is a job of the QA department.
They test Windows?
*head explodes*
Does the question mark libel-proof any unfounded allegation?
I don't think any sane person can believe that Linux supports the same range of hardware that Windows does, especially in the graphics department. You can blame that on device manufacturers that only ship with Windows drivers, leaving the FOSS community to write the Linux ones, if you want.
And yet somehow Stickney gets modded as Flamebait for a truthful assertion about his experiences, one I've had myself (and now I'm smart enough to insist on Nvidia graphics for any machine that runs Linux).
As an experiment for those that doubt me, drop into your console and run the following commands
glxinfo | grep "direct rendering"
glxinfo | grep "pbuffer"
and tell me if your driver supports both of them.
The title should read: beta testers of Windows 7 have unrealistic expectations!
Anyone who chooses to download and test a beta product should do themselves a favor and read a little about what it means.
ANY beta product is in a stage where is it too late to change features before release. ALL beta programs are focused on fixing bugs and resolving problems.
Just because you think your opinion on the product is important enough for Microsoft to change direction doesn't make it so.
Now its going to spew liquid!
Yes, really. Try http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/ . They are far more authoritative on QA processes than monster.com
Vista really doesn't suck. I say this as an OS X, Linux, and M-Windows user.
But if Microsoft wants to increase marketshare among the people using unlicensed installations of the OS, it's the Vista-style *licensing* of Win7 that must change.
The licensing model of Vista (and Win7) is like dongle, only worse: it's a dongle with an expiry date. It penalizes the customer. If I buy an authentication key, *I* should be the one to say on which computer I install it. I shouldn't have to call Redmond for permission if I change computers.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Then it doesn't really matter whether or not the Micro$oft idiots listen to you.
There is a POSIX subsystem in Windows.
Not in home edition. In Windows XP, the POSIX subsystem is called SFU (Windows Services for UNIX) and is a separate download. In Windows Vista, it's SUA (Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications) and comes with the OS. But SFU does not install on Windows XP Home Edition or Windows XP Media Center Edition without hacking the installer, nor does SUA come with Windows Vista Home Edition, Windows Vista Home Premium, or Windows Vista Business (source). So you can't very well distribute an app that relies on SFU/SUA to the public.
And none of those positions are with Microsoft. Please follow along.
between opposing opinions of the desirability or design of a feature. And there is risk of introducing new bugs by adding features or getting insufficient testing by introducing new features or code changes late in the product time line.
Any product manager has had to wrestle with the desire to satisfy with features, the desire for stability and the production target date. It isn't easy...partially because users have little appreciation of the chaos their requests introduce into the production process...nor should they care...it is the PM's job to filter the inputs and come up with workable a plan within resources and time lines...and the users job to judge the finished product.
And why there are cut off dates for feature changes that are different and earlier than for bug fixes. Feature changes generate too much risk if introduced late in the cycle.
As one who had the fate of his company's yearly reporting resting on a delivery date being met, I can tell you it isn't an easy call you make when you say "ship it" and you don't always get it right. Get it wrong and you are looking for a new job in another industry.
According to the CMMI process http://www.sei.cmu.edu/pub/documents/06.reports/pdf/06tr008.pdf (p.63):
The Process and Product Quality Assurance process area supports all process areas by providing specific practices for objectively evaluating performed processes, work products, and services against the applicable process descriptions, standards, and procedures, and ensuring that any issues arising from these reviews are addressed.
While "evaluating work products" certainly SOUNDS like this means QA is software testing, it is far from it. It means something completely different when you complete the sentence..."evaluating work products against the applicable process descriptions". Thus, it is QAs job to ensure the software test engineers are doing the job the way the process states they should be, not conducting any sort of software tests themselves.
So no, somebody in QA doesn't say, "hey, this button doesn't work". Instead, they say, "hey, Bob the software tester didn't follow process 4a" and because of that, nobody caught the fact that button didn't work. Then QA tells you your processes suck and makes you write new ones (even thought that's their job).
And yes, I realize my expertise in CMMI fully qualifies me to be a great Dilbert character.
Oh, Steve Jobs. We need human jobs!
testers often have opposing views about a feature
Redmond, they're called "Preferences". You can add a radio button or checkbox or pulldown menu that lets users select how they want Windows 7 to operate. It doesn't have to be all or none. Thanks.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
Of course, we're talking about Microsoft here. For all practical purposes, anybody who buys their newest product before the first Service Pack comes out is a beta tester.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Hmm... Here's what I get:
$ glxinfo | grep "direct rendering"
direct rendering: Yes
$ glxinfo | grep "pbuffer"
GLX_SGIX_pbuffer, GLX_SGIX_visual_select_group,
Actually, that last grep result is just one line from the following section in the glxinfo output:
client glx extensions:
GLX_ARB_get_proc_address, GLX_ARB_multisample, GLX_EXT_import_context,
GLX_EXT_visual_info, GLX_EXT_visual_rating, GLX_MESA_allocate_memory,
GLX_MESA_swap_control, GLX_MESA_swap_frame_usage, GLX_OML_swap_method,
GLX_OML_sync_control, GLX_SGI_make_current_read, GLX_SGI_swap_control,
GLX_SGI_video_sync, GLX_SGIS_multisample, GLX_SGIX_fbconfig,
GLX_SGIX_pbuffer, GLX_SGIX_visual_select_group,
GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap
There are several other sections, some rather more verbose than that one. The adapter is an ATI HD 4850 and I'm using Ubuntu 8.10 with dual 24" monitors (3840x1080).
But you have a valid point about the bloodymindedness of hardware vendors. I had to install the non-FOSS ATI/AMD Catalyst driver to get all the display functions working. The situation with Windows is not that much different: I had to plough through a couple of vendor CDs to install drivers on my Windows laptop at work.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
A "Whoosh" to you, and two "Whooshes" to the moderator who tagged you insightful.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Adding the Classic Start Menu option back in is unreasonable? Every time it's brought up, it's ignored by everyone but the rabid MS fans who berate it as old and outdated. There's no official response that I've found so far.
Expecting significant changes to the way the system works from a beta test is unreasonable. Expectations of what you expect the operating system to be and expectations of the outcome of a beta test are two entirely different things.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
As a 7 beta tester who has posted multiple feedback, and actually had replies, I have to say they are at least trying.
I believe they sort through them to find the people that might actually have a good idea of whats going on, and act upon those because they actaully have somewhere to start and head toward.
If you want to be heard, leave a good analysis of whats going on and maybe some suggestions as well.
They arent just going to hire people to go through these and analyze the 12 different bugs that 12,000 people are complaining about.
To me at least, it appears they are trying.
While I realize they're hemorrhaging market share (how sad)
"Hemorrhaging" is GM sales.
It is not Microsoft which has lost 2% of the desktop market - 23% of which now Vista. Operating system market share
An interesting footnote here:
In the Net Applications webstats, Linux at 0.8% has only eight times the share of the Win 7 Beta
- and something less than twice the share of the iPhone.
Yep.
Wait, what's the difference between those two statements again?
Caveat Utilitor
Is there something so terribly wrong with using your keyboard (and not just the arrow keys, kids) to navigate the start menu? What does MS have against this?
I would just like to point out this article:
Microsoft Says It Has Fixes for 2,000 Windows 7 Bugs Thanks to Testers.
So I guess the answer is no, Windows 7 testers are not going unheard.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
From the article
Microsoft hasn't done a great job of explaining to the millions of people who've tested Windows 7 that the beta stage is more about catching problems than significantly changing the way the system works.
My impression has always been that alpha testing is for determining whether or not to continue with an approach, and beta testing is for exercising the system to weed out sufficient bugs to continue with a final release. The beta testers complaining sound like they just went in with unreasonable expectations.
Or their expectations were not reasonably set?
The problem is... The people who would actually take the time to test Windows 7 Beta probably don't represent the "real" windows customers. Most people just want an OS that can get on the internet and check e-mail. For the rest of us they should just make their system simple and pluggable. Look at firefox. Millions of plugins, but the base always stays the same. Microsoft has always made the mistake of incorporating everything into the operating system. They should read the success stories of the OSS community. Create a platform that people can build on themselves and they'll do all the hard work on their own. In short, they should sell an operating system and stop trying to monopolize the users desktop.
Yay for reasonableness! Too often it seems that practicality is forced to take a back seat behind ideology, theology, and various other -ologies... "getting the job done", now *that's* more like it.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Do ANY of you folks have an answer, a GOOD SOLID TECHNICAL answer, as to WHY these cripplings have been implemented in VISTA, Server 2008, & most likely their descendant, in Windows 7:
----
1.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file
(vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & also occupy more RAM once loaded, for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)
In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!
E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with nearly 650,000 bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)... Here? This is SENSELESS bloat creation as the result!
&
2.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties "ADVANCED" section
(This is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)... Port Filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature!
Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #1 above)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.
----
I posted on Mr. Sinofsky's (?) blog, & have YET to get an answer on those things going on in VISTA, Server 2008, & probably Windows 7 as well... things I'd really LIKE to get an answer to, as to WHY Microsoft has done the 2 things in my list below, to the above noted versions of Windows.
(Sorry Microsoft - I really like your OS & softwares, but this time? Well - Both of those being done? EXTREMELY STUPID!)
APK
P.S.=> Does ANYONE know why these STUPID things were done to the latest/greatest versions of Windows? Otherwise, consider this "ammo" you 'anti-microsoft/anti-Windows' *NIX fans here can use, because @ this point? I wouldn't blame you IF you did... & hopefully?? It helps FORCE MS to undo them... because, I will be COMPLETELY FORTHRIGHT about this much: They're 2 reasons I won't upgrade beyond Windows Server 2003... apk
I went to the bloody Microsoft forums to discuss some of the shortcomings of Windows 7.
I told them X and Y and Z and mentioned why I don't like this and that.
The response from the MVP's on the site was basically pedantic stupidity.
Most of the features I complained about were actually introduced in Windows Vista and have remained in 7.
So because I was saying "I prefer it the old way" they were correcting me because "but it was like this in the old way, are you talking about XP?" as if XP users don't exist?!
I mean really, let's be serious now, Windows 7 is an attempt to convince the XP holdouts to switch to the new tech, Vista sheep have already been convinced it's all fine.
So here I am saying "look I'm fine with breadcrumbs on as long as there's an option to turn the things off" instead you find 15 responses telling me how good the breadcrumbs are.
I don't give a shit if you like them pal and I'm happy for you but don't go telling me I'm 'wrong' because I don't find them innovative, what HARM is there in having them turned off for me? Jesus the internet kills me this week!
I figure slashdot is the most likely place on the internet where the Windows users (if any) think in folders and paths - having the display broken up with stupid downarrows is annoying!
Eventually the MVP's told me to bundle my posts up and post them in to a single giant 400 page thread that the developers go through from time to time.
What?!
I want to debate and discuss the intracacies of UI design, if a single topic like breadcrumbs takes 3 pages to hash out a good solution so be it, not a single whiny post from me going "Hurr I don't like breadcrumbs" - what will the dev team think of that post?
I am a pedantic, whiny prick but I firmly believe I'm right (surprise surprise) and furthermore options are always good for the end user.
I've made some massive Vista whine posts on slashdot and my general issue to this day remains, the core explorer and user interface is an abomination, XP isn't flawless but Vista is worse and frankly that's not good enough.
I can think of 2 positive things added in Win 7, one is superior to Vista, the other is superior to even XP.
1.
If I hit Win & R (run) type in c:\windows\system32 and hit enter, the results are different on XP, Vista and Win7.
Windows 7 now has without doubt the best result, it opens a 'full' explorer (with tree) interface and the tree on the left is expanded to the folder you are in (if you enable an option) under Windows XP you had to click 'folders' button (but it was still good) under Vista, it was an abortion
2. /. posts http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/whywhy02.jpg )
The default 'full explorer' the "name / size / type / modified" bar at the top, Windows XP is basic, simple, clean
Windows Vista is an abortion a filthy disgusting abortion of cluttered UI and hatred, it drives me insane!
(See this picture from my previous
Finally the 'full explorer' in Windows 7 is a hybrid of XP and Vista and the dopey little intrusive downarrows are gone on those fields but do appear on a mouseover - absoloutely lovely.
I know these 2 points are so damned minor but for goodness sakes, most of us are techs / geeks, sure I don't run linux ok, forgive me but I do still work on a Windows PC and damnit if I don't want data, in my brain QUICKLY and NEATLY and having an interface full of, well rubbish doesn't help me do what I need to do.
Check this thing out for an example of why Vista is an abortion in UI design and I didn't even circle every thing you can interact with...
http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/wtf02.jpg
Oh and scope out this dopey bug too.
http://abrasion.shackspace.com/WTF.wmv (requires media player 9 or 10 i think)
Anyhow, long story short, I don't expect Bill gates t
It's all in the wording. You're right, the semantics are the same, but the first phrasing makes it explicit.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Don't Tell" policy...
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/25/2018243
Or, don't have a Lesbian X-Box... And, don't compete with the males seeking girls...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I thought the same thing on reading that. Took me a good minute or so to realize that the two statements were supposed to describe opposite situations, not the same one.
You are not alone, sir.
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
I'm one of those "customer experience improvement program" advocates, but this post disturbs me. I spend a lot of time writing comments about feature that I feel are for example missing in Outlook 2007 or ways they can improve Microsoft Office Accounting. If my comments go unheard then why am I bothering to waste my time. When I can simply use linux and hire a programmer to include the features I want and need. As an IT services provider I suggest to my clients that they signup for the customer experience improvement program, and few are willing. Microsoft should open a public forum or wiki for people to add comments and vote on feature suggestions. Making this information public would allow for better community support. If they already have this PLEASE someone reply to this post and tell me where I can find it.
I'd like to see what he had to say.
One of my complaints about 7 is how difficult it is to navigate through the Control Panel and the default Explorer window is overloaded. Also, managing "Libraries" becomes tricky/difficult if you store most of your data on a separate drive or partition.
The Holy Government should force them to avoid releasing the final version until ALL issues raised by ANYONE have been completely resolved to everyones' satisfaction and every single person agrees that the software is completely perfect in every way. if there are conflicting responses than they have to find a solution that completely satisfies all Parties. Only than are they allow to release it and the price should be set by the Government to -$10, meaning in order for You to buy it, they have to pay You $10 .
too much dependencies and compiling makes your Linux box a beige box?
Hmm, what does "finish it" really mean? finish it before a deadline? because to me, if you have changes, especially bug fixes, they all should go in before it's "finished". I don't care if it adds a year to your release schedule.
Granted, i'm not privy to the intricacies of microsoft release requirements, but seems to me, release the product when the consensus among dev. teams and feedback users is that it's ready for it. That's kind of what makes linux, esp. kernel dev. great. There's very little corporate pressure.
They should have just forgone Vista and kept working on until Windows 7 or further. Did we really need a new windows operating system? Do we now? How many are still going to be running Windows XP when Windows 7 comes out? I know I and my company will. We gain nothing good from Vista and will gain nothing from Windows 7.
Give us something revolutionary..we'll wait.
data mine.
Before anyone replies to this blog post you really need to read the whole thing. It goes into quite a bit of detail about engineering what is very possibly one of the most complex man-made things in the history of the world.
Exaggerate much? It's just an OS, FFS, not the frigging space shuttle. If it is the most complex man-made thing in history (hint: it's not), then Microsoft has a seriously screwed up engineering process.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Create a platform that people can build on themselves and they'll do all the hard work on their own.
Wow. That sounds awfully familiar...if only their were an operating system that people could build on themselves and do all the hard work on their own... You know, one that was highly-configurable, where people could pick and choose their components. One where people could modify the source code, even, if they wanted to.
I know there must be some OS like that out there...
My blog
...thats based on Vista. Its called server 2008. Just hack away the server parts of the OS and sell it already. Its much nicer than vista, while you can add whatever features you want to it.
"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."
I'm not exactly a representative sample, but I've sent 3-4 "Send Feedback" reports to Microsoft, and every single one of them has resulted in an email followup from a live human that clearly didn't just send me a form letter.
Think again.
Net Applications collects stats for on-line retailers and other clients who don't give a damn about licenses -
but do give a damn about how to get the best possible return from hits to their websites.
People:
I found the (imo) rather flimsy reasoning behind WHY the PORT FILTERING gui controls were allegedly removed in Windows VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7, after consulting with Mr. Mitch Tulloch... here tis:
From Chapter 27 of the Vista Resource Kit that explains the rationale for removing the TCP/IP Filtering UI:
----
"Windows XP Service Pack 2 actually has three different firewalling (or network traffic filtering) technologies that you can separately configure, and which have zero
interaction with each other:
Windows Firewall that was first introduced in Service Pack 2
TCP/IP Filtering, which is accessed from the Options tab of the Advanced
TCP/IP Properties sheet for the network connection
IPsec rules and filters, which you can create using the IPsec Security
Policy Management MMC snap-in
On top of this confusion, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 had a fourth network traffic filtering technology that you could use: the Routing and Remote Access Service
(RRAS), which supported basic firewall and packet filteringthe problem, of course, is that when more than one of these firewalls is configured on a computer, one firewall can block traffic that another allows"
----
Lame reasoning imo!
I say this, because it is TRIVIAL to create exceptions rules in most any software (or hardware based) firewall generally, & to match that in Port Filtering is quite simple also (even easier imo, provided you know what port's involved, & that's what the IANA lists are for, after all).
AND
Once a malware gets inside? One of the FIRST things it does, is disable a software firewall... & with NO OTHER BARRIERS IN THE WAY, such as PORT FILTERING RULES?
You get, what you get (infested systems galore online today).
APK
P.S.=> Mr. Tulloch & I are currently in progress searching for the reasoning behind the removal of 0 as a valid IP blocking address in a HOSTS file, but even HE was unaware of WHY this was done... but, with any luck? We're going to find out - &, I'll let you all know, here, if the thread isn't dead by then... apk
Funny... I was just implying that, if windows was modular, it would be easier to develop on and it would be easy for users to pick what they want and leave out the extra (crap). Doesn't it make sense to trim the excess fat on new operating systems so they can run their fancy graphics without hoarding processing time (ie. Vista)? For example, probably 75% of the crap in the System32 folder could be removed without affecting the user. Not to mention there are 88 different background services that come with a fresh install of Windows and many of these can be shut off without affecting the user (when was the last time you used telephony). Have you ever used DrWatson or MRT.exe (Malicious Software Removal Tool)? I know that Linux is coming close to reaching this but, there's still a ton of work that needs to be done to centralize the libraries. Maybe if OSI or FSF funded an effort to standardize the libraries and make them easy to modify/document without breaking functionality like MS did with .NET framework. But until someone is willing to fund it, there is little satisfaction or motivation to undertake such a massive project (and therefore little incentive to stop reinventing the wheel).
"when I first saw this article, I immediately thought "Bloat."" - by A. B3ttik (1344591) on Friday February 27, @10:48AM (#27012387)
On bloat (& more that's adversely affecting the IP Stack)?
Take a read:
Here are 2 security features Microsoft has PULLED (port filtering) &/or crippled (for efficiency in HOSTS files) which shouldn't be (& yet, are.)
----
1.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file
(vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & also occupy more RAM once loaded, for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)
In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!
E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with nearly 650,000 bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)...
This is SENSELESS bloat creation as the result!
&
2.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties "ADVANCED" section
(This is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)... Port Filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature!
Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #1 above)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.
----
QUESTION: Do ANY of you folks have a GOOD SOLID TECHNICAL answer as to WHY these cripplings have been implemented in VISTA, Server 2008, & most likely their descendant, in Windows 7?
See - I posted on Microsoft/Mr. Sinofsky's (?) blog -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx
AND, I have YET to get a SOLID TECHNICAL ANSWER on those things going on in VISTA, Server 2008, & probably Windows 7 as well, that justify doing so...
(They're things I'd really LIKE to get an answer to, as to WHY Microsoft has done the 2 things in my list above, to the above noted versions of Windows)
APK
P.S.=> I found the rather flimsy reasoning behind WHY the PORT FILTERING gui controls were allegedly removed in Windows VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7, after consulting with Mr. Mitch Tulloch ( http://www.windowsnetworking.com/Mitch_Tulloch/ )
From Chapter 27 of the Vista Resource Kit that explains the rationale for removing the TCP/IP Filtering UI:
----
"Windows XP Service Pack 2 actually has three different firewalling (or network traffic filtering) technologies that you can separately configure, and which have zero
interaction with each other:
Windows Firewall that was first introduced in Service Pack 2
TCP/IP Filtering, which is accessed from the Options tab of the Advanced
TCP/IP Properties sheet for the network connection
IPsec rules and filters, which you can create using the IPsec Security
Policy Management MMC snap-in
On top of this confusion, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 had a fourth network traffic filtering technology that you could use: the Routing and Remote Access Service(RRAS), which supported basic firewall and packet filteringthe problem, of course, is that when more than one of these firewalls is configured on
See subject-line above, & URL below: I suspect you did that after you admit you use multiple registered accounts here to mod yourself up & make it appear that you have the backing of others here in your postings, and you are now trying to hide that evidence by removing your post history here today. Evidence of that? Your username profile here, and reading here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1147437&cid=27056793 [slashdot.org] because that makes you a total loser The End of Days, rotflmao, and now everyone here knows it and should know it.