Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Problem Isn't How Often it Updates Windows -- It's How It Develops It (arstechnica.com)
Ever since Microsoft settled on a cadence of two feature updates a year -- one in April, one in October -- the quality of its operating system (taking into consideration the volume of bugs that emerge every few days) has deteriorated, writes Peter Bright of ArsTechnica. From the story: The problem with Windows as a Service is quality. Previous issues with the feature and security updates have already shaken confidence in Microsoft's updating policy for Windows 10. While data is notably lacking, there is at the very least a popular perception that the quality of the monthly security updates has taken a dive with Windows 10 and that installation of the twice-annual feature updates as soon as they're available is madness. These complaints are long-standing, too. The unreliable updates have been a cause for concern since shortly after Windows 10's release.
The latest problem has brought this to a head, with commentators saying that two feature updates a year is too many and Redmond should cut back to one, and that Microsoft needs to stop developing new features and just fix bugs. Some worry that the company is dangerously close to a serious loss of trust over updates, and for some Windows users, that trust may already have been broken. These are not the first calls for Microsoft to slow down with its feature updates -- there have been concerns that there's too much churn for both IT and consumer audiences alike to handle -- but with the obvious problems of the latest update, the calls take on a new urgency.
The latest problem has brought this to a head, with commentators saying that two feature updates a year is too many and Redmond should cut back to one, and that Microsoft needs to stop developing new features and just fix bugs. Some worry that the company is dangerously close to a serious loss of trust over updates, and for some Windows users, that trust may already have been broken. These are not the first calls for Microsoft to slow down with its feature updates -- there have been concerns that there's too much churn for both IT and consumer audiences alike to handle -- but with the obvious problems of the latest update, the calls take on a new urgency.
Imagine owning a car. One fine morning, you wake up and the steering wheel has been moved from left to right, and the brake pedal is on the ceiling. You call up the manufacturer, ask "why'd you do that."
Answer: "it's better, you'll get used to be new driver experience."
0. Introduce random UX changes that no one needs or wants because oooooh! shinyyy!
My biggest bugaboo is that Windows updates obliterates the CUDA-enabled nVidia video driver I have installed on the laptop, and replaces it with the craptastic non-CUDA Microsoft WHQL driver... which is why I have the whole thing disabled as deep in the registry as humanly possible.
Would it kill Microsoft to look for 3rd-party drivers before stomping all over shit with their own versions? I mean, if it weren't for a few CG apps (and the lack of a decent nVidia GPU in the latest MacBook Pros), I wouldn't care, but damn...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
If Microsoft Windows was only bought based on its quality and reliability there wouldn't have been a Windows 3, and if there had then ME would have killed it off, and of not then Vista would have, and if not then Windows 10... and so it goes one. Windows has never really been ready for the desktop - it's still unbearably bad/slow at even simple file handling.
Microsoft have zero incentive to do things better because the market never punishes them for their mistakes. They just shrug their shoulders and carry on regardless.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
"Fuck you, who else are you going to go to?"
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
I get what you're trying to say, but it would be nice if you didn't phrase it in a way that makes you a douche. My Computer Science degree, with the countless hours spent implementing every well known sorting algorithm, search algorithm, data manipulation algorithm, data structures, and other things that were done well decades ago, says your concept of requesting a lack of an engineering degree to being a code monkey is crap. A degree doesn't have to have the word engineering in it to be a valuable degree program. Hell, it doesn't have to be taught in a college of engineering either. It's the content and curriculum that matter. I'd argue it's more likely that the company has pushed their developers to release faster and faster, without the time needed to properly test and QA their work. You can be a vaunted engineer, and if you are being rushed, you'll make mistakes. Look at Apple... You could make the same arguments about the last 3 versions of iOS being substandard for quality as the Windows 10 updates have been lately. I doubt Apple has code monkeys, as you'd call it; I think they are just rushing their workers to market.
Londovir
New *features* sells software. Bug fixes don't.
Microsoft will keep churning out crud. Same shit. Different day. That same old 90s era C++ "we know better than you" attitude is still very much in evidence.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
"Microsoft needs to stop developing new features and just fix bugs."
Generally true, but what does Microsoft do about core features that are so intensely buggy that they are literally unsalvageable?
Computer over. Virus = very yes.