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?
I just wonder what happened to software ENGINEERING.
Why is it that user data ends up scattered everywhere ?
Why not have all the Windows software run from a read only directory,
and all Apps & Programs added on run from their own read only directory,
and keep all user info in its own User directory.
Things get scattered about and stuffed in hidden directories, etc.
I would like to see microsoft sort out the OS and default apps / office, so all of it runs from its own read only drive.
Then all data and cookies and registry, etc gets stored on its own drive or separate folder.
Also it would be best if they made Windows & Office completely portable so it can just run off a flash drive keychain & not be so tied up into lengthy installs into a PC.
Licenses can be sold to people and businesses and not linked to hardware platforms.
Go backup the older days of SP's also windows server is a bit slower but 2016 really needs an SP or update roll-up to fix the long updates.
forgot 1A lay off QA team and pass it to unpaid Beta Testers
Anyone I know who uses Windows does all they can to prevent updates, including - perhaps especially - IT departments. For some strange reason, it only takes one time of the CEO having his computer go into a forced update in the middle of a presentation to lenders, and policy changes REAL fast.
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"
And don't finish the UI changes you start. See the control panel.
Just sucks that Microsoft has gotten rid of so many good employees that they can't finish that task they started over five years ago.
"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."
This sounds like the Apple way
Depends... if we're talking iOS, you'd be spot-on.
MacOS (OSX) on the other hand? They got that stability/performance shit down fairly cold. My last MacBook Pro (5 years old, my wife inherited it last month, uses it daily) only got one OS re-install, and that was because I swapped out the old platter drive for an SSD not long after I bought it.
Zero stability issues, something like 5-6 OS upgrades on the same disk, a zillion patches/app-updates/etc... no sweat. Even today, it still runs as tight and fast as it did when I bought it in 2013. Only reason that I'm still not using it is because the 512MB GeForce in it doesn't run the Iray render engine worth a damn (slow old GPU, no RAM to speak of on it, etc.)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
There actually is a problem with how it updates it. You see, Windows was designed to emit a two-byte NOP at the beginning of every function, just so it could be hotpatched to redirect to a longer jump instruction. This mechanism would allow reboot-free updating of core system files.
I don't see any reboot-free updating of core system files here.
"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.
My observation is that M$ is experimenting with either different ways to spam Windows users, and/or looking for ways to force them into their cloud/store to (hopefully) rent or buy services through it. This is probably the main reason for changes.
I get "Windows notifications" of new or upgraded services offered by M$. The pretty login screens sometimes show vacation spots that M$ appears to be sponsoring*. (I must admit, I have clicked out of curiosity after seeing some nice photo. I fed the troll, and had to shower afterward.) And MS-Paint has a notice toolbar icon that the app will be moving to the cloud soon with a link to their store. The app may be free (now), but they can get you into their store to shop around if they move their usual Windows goodies up there.
They look at Google App Store and Apple Store as their future revenue growth, not selling OS's. The OS is to become their ad and MS-cloud tie-in platform. Linux-based OS's are slowly nipping at their OS cash cow, and they are scrambling for alternative revenue. They lost the phone and tablet OS wars, and consumers and small biz are slowly but increasingly shifting to Android and arguably Apple for desktop replacements or alternatives. New users only use M$ for compatibility, not because they want to. M$ is being pushed to be the new IBM, and Google is the new M$, but M$ won't go quietly, since they see how IBM is struggling to remain relevant. (IBM's A.I. ads have desperate PHB written all over them.)
Cloud is their only recent success story; thus, they're hellbent in turning Windows into an MS-cloud portal. I'd do the same if I were a greedy MS executive trying to leverage the co's only success.
* To be fair, I haven't found a direct tie yet, but some appear very suspicious. I should turn off the login wallpaper, but have to admit they supply some cool pics if you use the tuning feature to see what you like.
Table-ized A.I.
That's often true, but not in this case. Nobody "buys" windows for features, they get it because it came installed on their computer and that's what they need to run their software. No one's going to switch from Mac or Linux because File Explorer offers dark mode.
But yeah, features are exciting and bug fixes are boring, so the suits want new features to brag about in their Powerpoints. Honestly, there's no reason MS can't do both. They're a huge company, they should be able to fix bugs and develop features at the same time. Problem is Windows is and always has been a huge mess, it needs to be modularized and compartmentalized.
If I were king I'd start with a clean sheet, make Win 11 as backward-compatible as possible without compromising design parameters. Recognize that many "features" are actually apps and keep them sandboxed from the OS. Keep doing bug fixes for Win10 for those that are depending on legacy software, but no new features.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Older days, odd number service packs bricked the machine.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I'm noticing some similarities to that other "IT" from the movies:
1 - Both IT's have a crazy clown interface
2 - Both IT's make the townspeople lives miserable (although in fairness, only one of them loses your data)
Mod parent up!! However, that comment may, in some ways, be too kind.
Microsoft is poorly managed? Plenty of evidence.
Microsoft was badly managed 10 years ago.
Microsoft managers lack social ability. They have done ENORMOUS DAMAGE to the Microsoft brand name. That is my best understanding and opinion.
Some of the many, many reports of Microsoft managers thinking they can manipulate and control everyone, as though the managers are government dictators:
Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made. "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC." (Aug. 4, 2015)
Microsoft's Intolerable Windows 10 Aggression (May 27, 2016)
Microsoft is infesting Windows 10 with annoying ads (March 17, 2017)
Microsoft, stop sabotaging Windows 10. (March 21, 2017)
A huge problem: A high percentage of people who work with Windows computers make more money if there are more problems with Microsoft and Windows. There is a conflict of interest.
Apparently Microsoft managers decided they would try to be like Google's Android. They apparently decided to try to gather information about everything, and try to sell that information. Most people with cell phones don't have the technical knowledge necessary to know if they are being abused.
Can a company be sued for supplying computers with Windows 10? If a company supplies Windows 10 computers to businesses and doesn't get a signed agreement from all business customers that the customers know Windows 10 allows Microsoft to gather data from their computers, the supplier could be the target of court cases, and possibly even go to prison. No business customers want Microsoft employees to have access to their company information. My opinion, shared by many others.
People working with desktop computers don't want to be distracted by ads. They don't want to try to learn new, complicated user interfaces.
Despite regular bold statements that agile methods have improved everything, experience shows that it has mostly degraded software quality and consistency and only improved short-term revenue for software companies.
Regarding Windows, this has gone downhill so much that it defies good sense. It actually used to be a pretty decent platform (at least starting with Windows NT 4 and Windows 2000), very consistent. Starting with Windows 8, it started degrading. You just have to remember their main strategy was to push forward Windows on mobile platforms. They failed spectacularly with the mobile market, yet they kept insisting with all the same methods. Windows 10 is essentially the result of a strategic failure, which is incidentally consistent with agile methods, as those basically promote no long-term vision or strategy and only focus on short-term makeshift jobs, AKA "new features".
Wait, we have this clickbait title:
Microsoft’s problem isn’t how often it updates Windows—it’s how it develops it
but this buried in the article:
Microsoft hasn't exactly revealed the development process being used with Windows 10
Explanation: barely tech literate clickbait writer for Ars Technica imagines they have a clue about how software development works at Microsoft. Argue all you want about the quality of windows, but don't try to pretend you have some understanding about software development and how it's gone wrong in Redmond.
Win2k had the first iteration of Active Directory, and to be honest, it sucked balls
Microsoft blatantly ripped off Novell Netware for AD.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range