Windows 8 - Deeper Impressions

[JorgeA]

Microsoft pulls August Windows update after crashes

 

These updates didn't negatively impact any of our Win7 systems.

 

However, Microsoft sneaked back into my wife's updates list that April Update that "eases the upgrade experience" for installing Windows 8, and we didn't notice it.

 

Next thing you know, her Outlook can't download images that go along with e-mails. She remembered this happening before (I didn't). The solution was the same: to uninstall said Update.

 

We must have hidden the update which is why it hadn't shown up again since April, but evidently Microsoft decided to un-hide it again (without our consent ), no doubt in hopes of getting it past people who had declined it before.

 

There have been reports about PCs freezing and browsers not working properly anymore after installing this update. Maybe the idea is to mess up people's Win7 systems so that Win8 sounds more appealing by comparison...

 

--JorgeA

Edited August 20, 2014 by JorgeA

[JorgeA]

Windows Threshold: Answers to the questions you have been asking

 

Not a lot of detail, but something to chew on.

 

...We have also heard that Microsoft is doing everything it can to get away from Windows 8 as quickly as possible since it has not been well received with consumers.

 

Also:

 

...[T]echnically, Windows Threshold will be an update to Windows 8. It also seems plausible that Windows Threshold could be a free update for Windows 8 users, so for those of you who have bought in to the Windows 8 ecosystem, you will very likely be able to get Windows Threshold

 

Maybe this is the reason why they're pushing for the "ease of upgrade" Update (see the previous post), so that users can move on to Windows 9 (and find it less objectionable after Win7 got screwed up).

 

--JorgeA

 

[JorgeA]

Paul Thurrott declaims on those botched Windows Updates:

 

Patch Tuesday Tripped Up by Rapid Release Era

 

[...]This isn't just unprecedented, folks, it's catastrophic. And it casts a pall over Microsoft's rapid release strategy.

 

You may recall that I've been worried about this very problem, though even I didn't imagine that Microsoft would somehow screw up so many updates in a single month. (See, I'm not that negative.) But in a world in which IT departments were already leery about just trusting the updates that Microsoft released each month, I was curious what would happen when the firm started updating its core products even more rapidly. All it would take, I conjectured, was a single bad month.

 

Unfortunately, August 2014 is that month.

 

[...]

 

Whatever the reasons for this month's Patch Tuesday debacle, it's clear that these mistakes will trigger another round of distrust from Microsoft's core audience. And that's too bad, given the current climate: Microsoft has to be firing on all cylinders to succeed in this new world and it really needs its customer base to move along with it. These types of problems are a step back, and a reminder that the firm's still-broadly-deployed traditional software products simply don't respond well to cloud-service-style updating. I wonder if they ever will.

 

He brings up a cogent point here. If and when we are all dependent on a cloud-based OS, a failed update will affect every user suddenly, instead of how things work now where some "early adopters" take the chance and then report to the rest of the world if things go bad. Picture 1.5 billion terminals PCs all BSODing at the same time.

 

--JorgeA

 

 

 

[Formfiller]

He's back, and he's hardcore!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mriKM_39cfE

Edited August 20, 2014 by Formfiller

[NoelC]

Does anyone think there's any merit to a "rapid release" strategy?

 

What do people want?  Richer, more, better applications.

 

What do programmers want to be able to create richer, more, better applications?  A more mature, more productive ecosystem in which to work.  An ecosystem in which they've had time to get their footing, time to develop those applications, time to test those applications, time to market those applications.  Time, time, time.

 

That means keeping the OS the same for years, then migrating, evolving, improving, not "making it 'legacy'" every year.  You most certainly cannot come out with a "whole new paradigm" and throw away the old, without years - maybe decades - to get programmers working smoothly in it.  For these people, even more so than users, it has to work.

 

Who really thinks releasing new operating system software every year is helpful in any way besides theoretically bolstering yearly sales for the OS company?

 

I mean, geez, we hear over and over how people don't want to let go of XP!  Why do you think that is?  It worked, and it represented a stable environment in which to work!

 

Microsoft needs to distance themselves from everything done since the success story that is Windows 7.

 

-Noel

Edited August 20, 2014 by NoelC

[Tripredacus]

The only product I am aware of (that I use) that has a seamless, rapid-release type update system is Chrome. It updates itself and never notifies anyone, but then again it never has any problems. It hasn't helped Firefox much (imo) because it still notifies and asks to update... and I'm still clicking NO because I don't want my browser to start looking like Chrome.

[jaclaz]

What do people want?  Richer, more, better applications.

No.

You need to define "people" before (and different kinds of people).

 

1. People on the job *need* (not really *want*) to WORK with the PC. They want to have it WORKing and doing whatever the PC is supposed to do EXACTLY as it did it yesterday and the day before yesterday, they *need* to be able to use flawlessly the same programs/apps they have been using for years without issues and they would like to have - as an option - better applications, but ONLY without them attempting to change their established workflow and/or causing issues. Saving a few minutes a day because the OS or hardware is a tadbit faster would be a plus, but as long as it works they are fine with current speed. For them the PC (and programs in it) are just a tool, something they use to get the work done.

 

2. People on a few "technology oriented" jobs *need* more functionalities, more power, more speed (and quite frankly do not care much about the looks of the stupid thingy, as long as it crunches numbers - or whatever - effectively).

 

3. People on a few "graphically oriented" jobs - whatever they *need*, they ALREADY found it in Macs and ALREADY use them.

 

4. People that are mobile consumers want fun, some more fun, and even more fun, besides some news, and they already found what they want in a iPhone, an iPad or an Android smartphone/tablet^[1].

 

What ALL these kinds of people have in common   is what they DO NOT want, i.e. they DO NOT WANT:

• crashes
• BSOD's
• having their work or entertainment tool become unbootable or "bricked"
• lose their work for a strange quirk of the OS or because a stupid update messed with it

People that traditionally used MS products belong almost invariably to kind #1, and they are in larger numbers than you might expect (right now, roughly, 51.22%+24,82%= 76,04% of desktop and laptop users):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

 

the number of people in #2 and #3 are numerically irrelevant, whilst the vast majority of kind #4 (and that come in big numbers) were the only ones that might appreciate the new MS OS, but it failed, and failed big.

The "continuous update" model may be good for this latter kind of people, and for them only.

 

jaclaz

 

OT but not much, a friend bought a smallish, but not "tiny", 9" no-name tablet, Android based, for something like 70 € + another 20 € for a micro SD card.

After a bit of fiddling with it to install to it Whatsapp, which somehow it is not supposed to be installed on a tablet, and configuring it a but, I have to say it is not too shabby (to browse the internet, chat with whatsapp, get some lolcats, make a few selfies, these kinds of things).

[Kelsenellenelvian]

I have 2 laptops here i am fixing due to a failed updates reboot loop stemming from the august updates.

[JorgeA]

He's back, and he's hardcore!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mriKM_39cfE

 

The video (for me) was preceded by an advertisement for an Android watch. How's that for irony?

 

About Ballmer owning the Clippers: I'm looking forward to his first chair- (or bucket-) throwing tantrum next time the team goes on a losing streak.

 

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

Well, maybe Linux isn't the answer to Microsoft's outrages after all:

 

Munich, Germany realizes that deploying Linux was a disaster, going back to Windows

 

The city of Munich realizes that using Linux over Windows hampers productivity, goes back to Windows

 

Munich reverses course, may ditch Linux for Microsoft

 

 

 

The city’s hope that they would save money using Linux was shattered when it had to pay programmers to make the operating system functional and personal for them, and take care of the maintenance.

 

Issues arose when the Linux OS users tried to work with those outside the city and they were unable to share files easily with those on other applications. More so, the idea is generally that Linux setups are cheaper than a Microsoft solution as you do not have to pay licensing fees but what Munich experienced is that Linux was much more expensive. Why is it more expensive? That's because the city had to hire programmers to build out functionality that they needed and then had to pay the staff to maintain the software.

 

Munich's deputy mayor, Josef Schmid, told the Süddeutsche Zeitung that user complaints had prompted a reconsideration of the city's end-user software, which has been progressively converted from Microsoft to a custom Linux distribution -- "LiMux" -- in a process that dates back to 2003.

 

For a comprehensive assessment of the issues involved in making the switch to Linux (not specific to Munich's case), see this and this and this. The first item is the most relevant for people who use a computer in an office environment.

 

--JorgeA

 

[JorgeA]

 

People that traditionally used MS products belong almost invariably to kind #1, and they are in larger numbers than you might expect (right now, roughly, 51.22%+24,82%= 76,04% of desktop and laptop users):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

 

Make that 79.09% (76.04 + 3.05) adding Vista to the mix.    The proportion that you cite for category #1 is then even larger, which only makes your point stronger. 

 

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

I have 2 laptops here i am fixing due to a failed updates reboot loop stemming from the august updates.

 

Please keep us posted on your adventures with this.

 

--JorgeA

[jaclaz]

About Munich, obviously there is nothing "technical" in the news, it is just politics.

 

In any case in 2004 moving from XP to Linux (actually not really "Linux", but rather a custom developed Linux, more or less "nonsense" in itself) had been a courageous choice, possibly even a hazardous one, but no one, really noone can take ten years to find out it was a bad choice.

 

Now, going back from the LiMux to XP might even make some sense, but moving from LiMux to Windows 8/8.1?

 

Come on, get real.

 

@JorgeA

Technically , Vista users have NO relevance whatsoever, they are by default categorized as "meaningless" , they can be - exceptionally - allowed to be part of "the club" on an individual basis, as an example MagicAndre1981 : has been awarded a special  membership card, we may see if you are eligible for a similar token of appreciation....

 

 

jaclaz

Edited August 20, 2014 by jaclaz

[NoelC]

 

Technically , Vista users have NO relevance whatsoever, they are by default categorized as "meaningless"

 

And yet, that's a system that is now mature and (on appropriate hardware) just runs and runs without complaint, satisfying the group of users who don't want everything thrown away every year, but just want to continue to get their work done.

 

And no, not everyone who cares about graphics is using a Mac.  Since becoming Intel-based Macs don't do graphics any better than PCs (which is not a bad thing; both are incredibly powerful graphics systems).  By most estimates use of Adobe Photoshop is about split evenly between Macs and PCs.

 

-Noel

[jaclaz]

And no, not everyone who cares about graphics is using a Mac.  Since becoming Intel-based Macs don't do graphics any better than PCs (which is not a bad thing; both are incredibly powerful graphics systems).  By most estimates use of Adobe Photoshop is about split evenly between Macs and PCs.

 

Sure , though a link to such estimates would be nice, the point is about professional use, for whatever reasons all the professional graphics or designers I ever met used a Mac, maybe it's just a coincidence in my little experience.

 

jaclaz