I appreciate the feedback. I didn't test to that extent. We have good H/W and felt the compiling and editing was pretty good. I could see benefits in moving but the time required to do so was going to eat into actually coding time. We are short staffed (still to this day) and work with what we have.
VS2015 is a definite move over. Guess I'll have to consider TFS as well as we are running on TFS2010 and only really use it for change tracking.
Switching to unrefusable automatic updates in the face of unavoidable (but forgivable, it's generally acknowledged that no one is immune to at least some of those) system-breaking bugs is pretty awful
There's benefits and downfalls to either way of doing. On one side having a breaking change sucks. Most users currently get updates installed at 3am daily. MS's track record is pretty good with publishing good updates. Very few users were affected by the bad updates released in the last 5 years.
Fact is that MS will back track on this issue because there is enough pressure to do so. Production environments will refuse to use Windows 10 until there's a way to control when updates are applied. Possibly this can already be done through WSUS and group policies but for end users that's still an issue.
just because you don't want to pay an extra $80 for the privilege of a system you don't have to let them break
I'm out of the loop on this one. What $80 are you talking about?
And this from a company that has recently stooped to pushing adware
Well I guess the weekly paper that's dropped for free on my porch is vile as well. I have to pick it up and put it in the recycling. As far as I'm concerned this was only an issue for people with OCD and those who hate MS in the first place. Just gave them an excuse to complain more.
Most users I know were happy to see that icon pop up to find out they would get the next upgrade at no cost.
Why are you always ranting about MS? You know you don't have to use their products right?
You know that software bugs are part of every eco system right? Linux, MAC and MS have them. Many of them come in the form of bad firmware or bad drivers that can actually ruing hardware.
Should we all go after Seagate for putting out millions of drives with defective firmware that eventually self terminates the hard drive? I think that's far more destructive than this.NET bug which can be fixed with a simple update (one that will be posted shortly I'm sure).
Should we start talking about the heart bleed security flaw? I think a defective OS library is far less damaging to a person than their identify being stolen due to a bug in a security protocol.
If you hate MS that much stop using/buying their products because you clearly can't handle them. If you don't have MS products then just shut up or get a bias opinion that we can actually respect instead of this childish ranting.
I don't know if you were being negative or playful when you wrote this but with all major overhauls there's going to be bugs. You just need to give them a little bit of time to work out the quirks they didn't catch during internal QC. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe this was ever a public BETA.
I only installed VS2013 a few months ago after it reached SP4
I used VS2005 6 months after. It was perfectly fine. VS2010 was a welcomed upgrade that encountered minor issues along the way that were resolved with the patches released not that much later. I didn't force a 2013 upgrade for our dev team but I did trial it on a VM. VS2013 had noticeable issues at launch but that appeared all solved by the 30 day mark. We decided to wait for VS2015 because 2010 was fine and we didn't find 2013 had enough to offer in terms of improvement for our dev team.
The good news is that it was caught and will be fixed quickly by the sound of it.
Although it sounds perfect it's not. Tax breaks aren't all used for evil such as paying back campaign funding sources. There are legitimate reasons for providing certain industries tax breaks.
You haven't even shown that it's more likely than a moose related fatality or a deer attack
The moose incident is not avoidable without major inconvenience. That was the point.
My brother in law who is a trucker has 2 on his record (1 000 000km driven). It's about where you live and when you travel. Up north moose / deer incidents are in weekly news during the summer. Drive at night and you increase your chances of hitting a moose by more than 10 fold. That's very comparable to the test they did. Don't do it and you don't increase chances of an accident and do it and it's an infinite % increase in change of accident.
It's very likely the author accepted a larger risk of an accident in the process of going to see Valasek and Miller than he did during the test
That's pretty obvious but it's not the case for the other people on the highway.
The point is simple. Don't do testing in an uncontrolled environment. It's easily avoided with no impact on the test itself.
Unneeded risk is just that, unneeded. There are a millions things you do daily to avoid even smaller % of danger and yet you roll your eyes at a completely avoidable scenario.
If you can admit to facts and common sense there's not much more to say here.
If you told me it's inconvenient to address the issue for a situation that occurs less than 1% of the time I'd agree but because there is no additional cost or inconvenience to do it on a closed circuit it's a no brainer. What they did (all of them) was add unneeded risk to an exercise that didn't gain anything by being done in a "non test" environment. That's the point the previous guy was trying to make and it was very valid.
All major applications we use here are making full use of said features. Clearly CALC.EXE doesn't need it but CAD and other design software make great use of it.
Some of the application developed internally have multithreading to allow live data without the need to wait or get GUI interruptions.
So, 1.8% of an unlikely thing involves stalled cars
You didn't read the link did you? 1.8% of highway accidents are stalled vehicle which more often result in fatality. Where I travel there's an average 5 accidents per day. That would mean every 11 days there's an accident involving a stalled car. If you told me it's inconvenient to address the As someone who drives on the interstate, I frequently see cars on the side long enough to be tagged for impound with no evidence of being hit.
Maybe you travel a stretch that is less dangerous. City stretches tend to be more chaotic and law usually forces vehicles to accept the first tow.
The police routinely pull people over to the side of the interstate
Yes, and they follow a protocol to stay safe. They need to do this because highways are dangerous places to stop.
Even marked vehicles are in danger. 4-5 years ago 3 police officers with vehicles parked 2 feet from the line (on the shoulder) with their lights on got hit. This stretch of highway wasn't even chaotic and you could see for miles ahead.
If you don't live close to a busy highway I can understand why you don't understand the danger of stalling on the road while cars are passing you at 75 MPH
Ask the author of TFA, he wasn't a random victim
Who said random? The blame is on all of them. There's a reason testing is done on isolated tracks.
Someone went from the tech being useless, to being explained that the tech works at improving visibility if one isn't a tard behind the wheel to now talking about tards again. If one can't drive safely then that's just a problem in itself isn't it? No amount of lighting will help that driver.
People voluntarily wash their windshield while driving all the time. They also drive in the rain, even heavy rain.
And they know its going to happen because they either initiate the action or anticipate it. In this case he didn't know it was going to happen.
People's cars stall on the highway all the time. At no point was he in the situation your link talks about. Even if he had been on the shoulder, that too happens all the time and rarely leads to a problem.
Would you say it's dangerous to have your car stall on the highway? The answer is yes. So why would you intentionally put yourself or someone else in that position of danger?
Usually people like putting the odds of survival on their side. Test environments are there so we don't have to create unneeded danger.
Did you watch the video? Within the first 2 minutes I can see the following two things I consider dangerous: - They reduced his visibility by activating the wipers and windshield washer - They cut off the engine while he's on a busy highway
- Live GUI changes alone can cut down the GUI dev time by about 25%. - The debugger time line will reduce the time required to debug - The H/W resource tracking will make quick work of optimizing application or at least finding the culprit. - The testing tools have been improved to significantly reduce the time required to create test procedures and run them
This is just a small list of things that have been improved.
The story here is that most people just read the 3 words on a box and assume they understand. If a company goes out of their way to hide the truth then shame on them, but if you as a consumer don't take 5 minutes to go online and figure out if a product is fitting or delivering on the merchandise then shame on you.
Personally, I'm far more concerned with my tax dollars being messed with (And there's a whole lot of that going on) because I can't control that. My purchasing decisions are still in my control as long as I don't blindly purchase things.
MSPHB: got it, good. Stick the word devops on it, mark it up 60% from last release and throw some words out of the buzzbook on the box.
You don't dev in MS do you? It's only obvious because you don't see the huge time savings seasoned developers will get with the new features. For those who use the testing features, they will save even more time.
It could cost $2000 more per license and it would still pay for itself within a year.
It's not the advertisers, it's the consumers. Consumers won't pay for a monthly subscription to Facebook and or for a search engine (Although businesses would).
The current model for making online services that aren't niche is to monetize them through advertisement. This is especially true if you want the young generation's attention.
For those who justify their lives through status updates and being in the know of their current circle of friends it's convenient.
Otherwise its just another gizmo that will take your attention away from what you are currently trying to focus on. I've hired many young programmers over the last 3 years and a few of them were so easily distracted by their existing device that I had to constantly remind them to focus on the task at hand. One of them actually had a Android based watch. Let it be known that they weren't re-invited to work for my company and reference aren't provided.
Slashdot Mirror
Where do you get this information. If you install it within the first year it's free for the life of the device:
http://www.microsoft.com/en-US...
I appreciate the feedback. I didn't test to that extent. We have good H/W and felt the compiling and editing was pretty good. I could see benefits in moving but the time required to do so was going to eat into actually coding time. We are short staffed (still to this day) and work with what we have.
VS2015 is a definite move over. Guess I'll have to consider TFS as well as we are running on TFS2010 and only really use it for change tracking.
Switching to unrefusable automatic updates in the face of unavoidable (but forgivable, it's generally acknowledged that no one is immune to at least some of those) system-breaking bugs is pretty awful
There's benefits and downfalls to either way of doing. On one side having a breaking change sucks. Most users currently get updates installed at 3am daily. MS's track record is pretty good with publishing good updates. Very few users were affected by the bad updates released in the last 5 years.
Fact is that MS will back track on this issue because there is enough pressure to do so. Production environments will refuse to use Windows 10 until there's a way to control when updates are applied. Possibly this can already be done through WSUS and group policies but for end users that's still an issue.
just because you don't want to pay an extra $80 for the privilege of a system you don't have to let them break
I'm out of the loop on this one. What $80 are you talking about?
And this from a company that has recently stooped to pushing adware
Well I guess the weekly paper that's dropped for free on my porch is vile as well. I have to pick it up and put it in the recycling. As far as I'm concerned this was only an issue for people with OCD and those who hate MS in the first place. Just gave them an excuse to complain more.
Most users I know were happy to see that icon pop up to find out they would get the next upgrade at no cost.
Why are you always ranting about MS? You know you don't have to use their products right?
You know that software bugs are part of every eco system right? Linux, MAC and MS have them. Many of them come in the form of bad firmware or bad drivers that can actually ruing hardware.
Should we all go after Seagate for putting out millions of drives with defective firmware that eventually self terminates the hard drive? I think that's far more destructive than this .NET bug which can be fixed with a simple update (one that will be posted shortly I'm sure).
Should we start talking about the heart bleed security flaw? I think a defective OS library is far less damaging to a person than their identify being stolen due to a bug in a security protocol.
If you hate MS that much stop using/buying their products because you clearly can't handle them. If you don't have MS products then just shut up or get a bias opinion that we can actually respect instead of this childish ranting.
So much for a new 'improved' version
I don't know if you were being negative or playful when you wrote this but with all major overhauls there's going to be bugs. You just need to give them a little bit of time to work out the quirks they didn't catch during internal QC. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe this was ever a public BETA.
I only installed VS2013 a few months ago after it reached SP4
I used VS2005 6 months after. It was perfectly fine. VS2010 was a welcomed upgrade that encountered minor issues along the way that were resolved with the patches released not that much later. I didn't force a 2013 upgrade for our dev team but I did trial it on a VM. VS2013 had noticeable issues at launch but that appeared all solved by the 30 day mark. We decided to wait for VS2015 because 2010 was fine and we didn't find 2013 had enough to offer in terms of improvement for our dev team.
The good news is that it was caught and will be fixed quickly by the sound of it.
Your brother in law was killed by hitting a moose TWICE? Resilient fellow, isn't he? :-)
Wow... I don't need to say anymore. At least I know who I'm dealing with.
Although it sounds perfect it's not. Tax breaks aren't all used for evil such as paying back campaign funding sources. There are legitimate reasons for providing certain industries tax breaks.
You haven't even shown that it's more likely than a moose related fatality or a deer attack
The moose incident is not avoidable without major inconvenience. That was the point.
My brother in law who is a trucker has 2 on his record (1 000 000km driven). It's about where you live and when you travel. Up north moose / deer incidents are in weekly news during the summer. Drive at night and you increase your chances of hitting a moose by more than 10 fold. That's very comparable to the test they did. Don't do it and you don't increase chances of an accident and do it and it's an infinite % increase in change of accident.
It's very likely the author accepted a larger risk of an accident in the process of going to see Valasek and Miller than he did during the test
That's pretty obvious but it's not the case for the other people on the highway.
The point is simple. Don't do testing in an uncontrolled environment. It's easily avoided with no impact on the test itself.
Unneeded risk is just that, unneeded. There are a millions things you do daily to avoid even smaller % of danger and yet you roll your eyes at a completely avoidable scenario.
If you can admit to facts and common sense there's not much more to say here.
If you told me it's inconvenient to address the issue for a situation that occurs less than 1% of the time I'd agree but because there is no additional cost or inconvenience to do it on a closed circuit it's a no brainer. What they did (all of them) was add unneeded risk to an exercise that didn't gain anything by being done in a "non test" environment. That's the point the previous guy was trying to make and it was very valid.
All major applications we use here are making full use of said features. Clearly CALC.EXE doesn't need it but CAD and other design software make great use of it.
Some of the application developed internally have multithreading to allow live data without the need to wait or get GUI interruptions.
So, 1.8% of an unlikely thing involves stalled cars
You didn't read the link did you? 1.8% of highway accidents are stalled vehicle which more often result in fatality. Where I travel there's an average 5 accidents per day. That would mean every 11 days there's an accident involving a stalled car. If you told me it's inconvenient to address the As someone who drives on the interstate, I frequently see cars on the side long enough to be tagged for impound with no evidence of being hit.
Maybe you travel a stretch that is less dangerous. City stretches tend to be more chaotic and law usually forces vehicles to accept the first tow.
The police routinely pull people over to the side of the interstate
Yes, and they follow a protocol to stay safe. They need to do this because highways are dangerous places to stop.
Even marked vehicles are in danger. 4-5 years ago 3 police officers with vehicles parked 2 feet from the line (on the shoulder) with their lights on got hit. This stretch of highway wasn't even chaotic and you could see for miles ahead.
More links to show you highway stopping dangers aren't a myth:
http://www.allenandallen.com/b...
https://www.aaafoundation.org/...
Quit trying to stuff words in my mouth. The answer is "not really".
So 1.8% of interstate accidents in Kentucky involved a stalled vehicle.
http://uknowledge.uky.edu/ktc_...
The link is old but it makes the point.
If you don't live close to a busy highway I can understand why you don't understand the danger of stalling on the road while cars are passing you at 75 MPH
Ask the author of TFA, he wasn't a random victim
Who said random? The blame is on all of them. There's a reason testing is done on isolated tracks.
What does this have to do with the topic?
Someone went from the tech being useless, to being explained that the tech works at improving visibility if one isn't a tard behind the wheel to now talking about tards again. If one can't drive safely then that's just a problem in itself isn't it? No amount of lighting will help that driver.
People voluntarily wash their windshield while driving all the time. They also drive in the rain, even heavy rain.
And they know its going to happen because they either initiate the action or anticipate it. In this case he didn't know it was going to happen.
People's cars stall on the highway all the time. At no point was he in the situation your link talks about. Even if he had been on the shoulder, that too happens all the time and rarely leads to a problem.
Would you say it's dangerous to have your car stall on the highway? The answer is yes.
So why would you intentionally put yourself or someone else in that position of danger?
Usually people like putting the odds of survival on their side. Test environments are there so we don't have to create unneeded danger.
Did you watch the video?
Within the first 2 minutes I can see the following two things I consider dangerous:
- They reduced his visibility by activating the wipers and windshield washer
- They cut off the engine while he's on a busy highway
Here's a sample of what happens when you stop on the highway:
http://www.citynews.ca/2007/12...
Just recently there was an emergency vehicle with lights on that was hit while on the shoulder.
That's why good drivers use common sense.
The technology is here to help improve driving at night, not to save you from an unavoidable accident.
StikyPad made a good point. Doing the test on public roads did nothing to reinforce the actual issue.
As far as I know this whole may just be a montage to get a few more views but it does make them look irresponsible.
But I want to run it. The dilemma!!!
You're still made you didn't get to come back?
- Live GUI changes alone can cut down the GUI dev time by about 25%.
- The debugger time line will reduce the time required to debug
- The H/W resource tracking will make quick work of optimizing application or at least finding the culprit.
- The testing tools have been improved to significantly reduce the time required to create test procedures and run them
This is just a small list of things that have been improved.
The story here is that most people just read the 3 words on a box and assume they understand. If a company goes out of their way to hide the truth then shame on them, but if you as a consumer don't take 5 minutes to go online and figure out if a product is fitting or delivering on the merchandise then shame on you.
Personally, I'm far more concerned with my tax dollars being messed with (And there's a whole lot of that going on) because I can't control that. My purchasing decisions are still in my control as long as I don't blindly purchase things.
LOL Darkain.
MSPHB: got it, good. Stick the word devops on it, mark it up 60% from last release and throw some words out of the buzzbook on the box.
You don't dev in MS do you?
It's only obvious because you don't see the huge time savings seasoned developers will get with the new features. For those who use the testing features, they will save even more time.
It could cost $2000 more per license and it would still pay for itself within a year.
It's not the advertisers, it's the consumers. Consumers won't pay for a monthly subscription to Facebook and or for a search engine (Although businesses would).
The current model for making online services that aren't niche is to monetize them through advertisement. This is especially true if you want the young generation's attention.
For those who justify their lives through status updates and being in the know of their current circle of friends it's convenient.
Otherwise its just another gizmo that will take your attention away from what you are currently trying to focus on. I've hired many young programmers over the last 3 years and a few of them were so easily distracted by their existing device that I had to constantly remind them to focus on the task at hand. One of them actually had a Android based watch. Let it be known that they weren't re-invited to work for my company and reference aren't provided.