It’s only been out for a day, but Windows XP already needs 20MB of updates, according to C|Net-News. Some of the updates fix security holes, others resolve glitches and a few add new features. This upgrade also purports to sort out problems with Pagemaker, Dreamweaver, McAfee VirusScan, Money 2000 and RealPlayer 7.0 among many others.
Day1 XP Accessory: 20MB of Security and Glitch-fix Updates
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
This is just what I expected.
And it crashes on some people when they update it too.
As supposed….
Should they really be allowed to design any type of OS ??
I think you are all forgeting something:
1. WindowsXP as we know it (the OEM version, which is the same as the printed boxed one) came out 2 months ago, not yesterday. That leaves them 2 months to find new bugs and release this 20 MB patch.
2. Linux kernels 2.4.11 to 2.4.13 were rushed out of the door, with important bugs in them, and they were all released in a duration of ONE month. Plus, they are 25 MB each (if you are not smart enough to use the patches). Plus, you have to recompile your kernel manually.
3. WindowsXP is a full OS and supports 12,000 devices, not just a kernel as Linux is. That alone makes them have more bugs that need fixing (every software in this planet has bugs) and again, do not forget that the 20 MB update is for the version of XP that was built and printed 2 months ago, not yesterday. Put together X, KDE, Gnome the kernel and other important system Linux libs and apps found in the distros and you will see that patches for these packages are released EVERY DAY. It’s just that Windows is releasing these patches as a single package instead of having the user to hunt down all the new versions of software individually as you do in Unix.
I am not taking Microsoft’s side, I do believe that they rushed out the product a bit, but I am merely talking as a developer. Knowing how the whole software writting process working, I am not too shocked to see this Windows update today. Neither I believe that Linux has better engineers than BeOS and that BeOS has better engineers than Microsoft, and Microsoft has better engineers than Sun, because it ain’t true. They are all engineers coming out from the same schools, they all have families to feed, and they are all the same kind of people (geeks) at the end of the day. The thing is just that WindowsXP is a _huge_ project, plus it carries all the backwards compatibility stuff. So, don’t be too fast in your judgemenents.
Do you want a service pack in 6 months or fixes now?
They know the bugs exist. They fix them. They release the fixes.
Barring the whole WinXP team jumps in the way-back machine and fix these things before the product is released, what do you expect?
People forget, Microsoft is a company. Companies are in the business of making money. Not only for themselves but for their shareholders. This does not apply to the GNU/Linux community. The release schedule of a product (especially of the magnitude of XP) depends on economic factors that do not exist in the open-source community.
The bottom line, no products ship without bugs. Period.
Microsoft is the biggest software company with thousands of developers dedicated to Windows, with billions of dollars of CASH and hundreds of millions of customers.
Can you say “rushed”? Yeah, in this case, you can.
Hey Bill… thanks for nothing.
>Hey Bill… thanks for nothing
Mario, I am sorry for saying this, but your post does not make much sense.
Our subject here is the 20MB patch released.
If your mean that Microsoft has put thousands of engineers in the XP project (which they have), and that should bring us a bug-free version of WindowsXP, then you are deeply mistaken. Software development does not work this way.
Sure, you should expect better results by having lots of people working on a project, but that won’t make the project come out much earlier and completely bug free.
There is no software in this world that is bug free. Developers always make compromises regarding their releases (“I am going to fix that in the next release – it is no big deal for now”). For example, I can name you 20-30 BeOS bugs right now, who are fully reproducible in my machine. And the Be engineers knew about them all along. But they had a product to deliver and these bugs are not show stopping. Same goes for every other company. Linux developers are the same, but they are prefering to have releases very regularly, because their working model is different. But they DO also have bugs, and they do fix them.
I was having a discussion with my husband once (we have discussions about technology while at bed, before going to sleep
. I asked him “if you had 200 engineers, would you be able to do something similar to BeOS in a year?”
And he said: “No. I would need only 30 engineers, the engineers I know they can deliver, and we would need at least three years”.
I would urge you to http://www.joelonsoftware.com/stories/storyReader$368“>read . The guy knows what he is talking about. The quality cycle for a software program is 10 years. I am sorry, but this is how much you have to wait for any new application or OS to mature. In my opinion, WindowsXP is pretty mature today. It is in a grealy better health than ludicrous releases like Win95/98 were back then.
Hope it makes sense.
Eugenia recently I talked about the XP patches with some other ppl (from #qnx)
they just point out the same stuff since they know I use also linux… but…
1 I did NOT pay for linux and surroundings so if there are bugs I can maybe ASK in the most pleasant way the app developer about fixing it.
2 WinXP cost about 250$ isn´t it? with that sum I can buy a commercia linux distro and I have about 1-3 month of phoneline support and I can call them for every issue …, I had really bad time with win2k (I bought that and I got to use it for work) it cost me money and I got NO support at all!!
3 Just not say the 2.4.11 kernel had a big bug and it was fixed with a close release and the .13 followed in really few time…, WinXP had about 2 month of RC test? Do you think that the couldn´t just apply those fix just postponing the XP launch of a week(or the time to rebuild CDs) or at least spend 2 days to add a pach on medium (minicd?) budled?
M$ shows again that just have marketing priority over quality…
1 I did NOT pay for linux and surroundings so if there are bugs I can maybe ASK in the most pleasant way the app developer about fixing it.
Why are you confusing the issue here?
The issue here is the 20 MB patch released the day that the retail WinXP version released, not how much you pay for any OS.
WindowsXP is a commercial OS. Linux is a Free OS. There is a difference on the way the who strategies and software releases work in these two also different business models. If you do not like to pay for an OS, please go with Linux. But that has nothing to do with general software patches.
>Win2k cost me money and I got NO support at all!!
I am sure that for the right price, Microsoft would give you all the support you would need. But do not get overboard again saying “but that costs!”. OF COURSE IT DOES. Windows is a commercial product, like it or not. If you don’t want to go with it, go with Linux.
>Do you think that the couldn´t just apply those fix just postponing the XP launch of a week(or the time to rebuild CDs) or at least spend 2 days to add a pach on medium (minicd?) budled?
NO THEY COULD NOT. You have no idea what you are talking about!
Windows XP comes in millions of CDs. If they had to reprint it, take my word for it, you would have to pay WAY more than the $250 you mentioned so the company gets even! Microsoft is a company, they have expenses. They do not trash millions of CDs just like that. That would be a financial disaster.
I am sure that downloading the 20 MB patch of the web, is not bad comparing to the difference the consumer had to pay for the reprinting (and it is not just the cost of the CD we are talking about, but the whole damned process to create a boxed product).
> WinXP cost about 250$ isn´t it? with that sum I can buy a commercia linux
> distro and I have about 1-3 month of phoneline support and I can call them
> for every issue
You seem to forget that Micosoft has to pay thousands of employees from you $250. The commercial Linux vendors have only a friction of employees to pay.
If they can afford 1billion expenses for advertising the can make an miniCD add on…
Mine is just a personal point of view
BTW I´s wrong… with about half prige I got the Linux distro with support…
And I still think that M$ get money from office suite and other products…
>Mine is just a personal point of view
Yes, we still like you, don’t worry.
>And I still think that M$ get money from office suite and other products
The software department that develops Office, has nothing to do with the OS or the Internet Explorer department. They can’t “share money”. This is not how big corporations work. Each department has its budget already pre-set months before.
Sorry to butt in, but:
Seems that the issue is not being confused. Rather, two groups are looking at the question from opposite sides. Developers vs. Consumers.
Everyone’s comments about the development and ambient quality of software are well taken – but they are not really what the other side is arguing about. As a consumer, we should have the right to expect a better product than what we get. Some of you say “no software is without bugs,” and “MS are a business,” and therefor should release something inferior and we should expect that. I just disagree with that from a consumer point of view.
When you spend money, you should get something better than something free, shouldn’t you?
<Unrealistic expectations on> We should not accept buggy software. Recalls and loss of business are part of producing inferior products. <Insert monopoly tirade here>.
I guess this discussion reminds me of going to dinner or a bar (in countries where tipping is practiced) and those who have been waitresses/waiters tip even for bad service because they know how hard it is. Similarly, those here who most strongly badmouth MS products jump right in to defend when it becomes a question of the development of the software. Personally, I feel it is my civic duty to bitch.
> When you spend money, you should get something better than something free, shouldn’t you?
I wouldn’t argue with that.
> Personally, I feel it is my civic duty to bitch.
Not necessarily. We have all agreed that there is no software without bugs. It is, plainly, <U>unavoidable</U>. So, bitching for something that is naturally unavoidable, it should be called trolling.
The whole point should be as to “how much” these bugs are affecting your overall experience. If the product is extremely crash proned, then sure, the product should be called off.
If however, the bugs are not noticable by the user, or noticable by some small minorities of users with some specific hardware configurations, then it is up to the managers calling something “release candidate” or not. I am sure all these people in these positions have some clue as to if a product is ready or not. (or, I do hope so!)
From what I hear and read, WinXP is extremely stable. This patch is mostly a security fix and it also fixes backwards compatibility with specific software that it is known to not play nice with XP. Having perfect backwards compatibility with zillion of apps in an OS level is not an easy thing you know… [sorry, speaking as a developer again]
Eugenia, I happen to know how software development works. But I also happen to know the impact of a release like WindowsXP. As I said, Microsoft has hundreds of millions of customers, they MUST improve their functional testing process.
No, MS has not excuse and it’s beyodn redemption anyway already.
> Put together X, KDE, Gnome the kernel and other important system Linux libs
> and apps found in the distros and you will see that patches for these
> packages are released EVERY DAY.
With Linux, there are lots of non-critical patches and updates.
Kernel upgrade ? apt-get install kernel-image-x.y.z. Not the sources size, juste the kernel. So since 2.4 is out, upgrading every kernel wouldn’t even cost 20 megs.
Oh, and look at the Debian Potato security fixes needed from r0 (more than 1 year ago) until now (r4 will soon be released). And compare. These are security updates.
“Do you want a service pack in 6 months or fixes now?
They know the bugs exist. They fix them. They release the fixes.”
Here here rick! I only wish Apple and Be Inc. had been so quick to release fixes and updates.
Windows XP already out and needs a fix! Ok Mac OS X wasn’t quite ready for the masses in the original release, but Microsoft has went thru beta after beta before releasing the final version… what a joke! I am so glad that I am not a victim to Microsoft’s stupidity anymore… good luck to the ones who have to deal with such crap!!!
As others have pointed out, it’s rather simple really.
a) you make a product.
b) you do a reasonably wide beta.
c) a release date is set. You now have to freeze your code base & send out the product for shipping.
d) in the mean time the beta process continues. But your manufacturing cycle has already started so tough – you can’t change the product during this time.
e) doesn’t stop you from building the patch update ready to go soon after release date. This happens in parallel with primary product manufacture.
f) release day comes. you have to sweat it out knowing all the bugs that are in the release.
g) the update patches are released soon after. Life goes on.
Now for how it works in the real world.
In my experience, we have done quite long betas before a major product release. These are a trying time as people continually want enhancements and not necessarily bug fixes. Some feature requests you respond to but alas they introduce yet more bugs. Eventually you say “no more” and let the final beta settle. Then you do the official release. And guess what, since none of the beta testers really bothered to test it properly or report back, you find that even then, some annoying bugs slip through. So I find that the first month or so after official release is a real settling in time for the product, and typically there are 1-3 patch releases to fix the stuff that didn’t get found by the beta testers. That’s life – what else can you do. As the product matures, there are less & less major enhancemnts so the beta cycle converges much faster.
P
Actually, we went through three pre-release(BETA) versions of Mac OsX…and it still was not ready for public consumption in March/April.
So get off your horse and thinkalittle before passing judgement.
Actually I prefer it that Microsoft release fix’s when they are available, rather than waiting indefinitely until a major release as is the case with Be and BeOS.
Plus public beta testing works, when controled. MayBe Be should have been more receptive to this in their development stage and maybe time permitting you would have BONE 1.0 and OpenGL 1.0 for BeOS.
Instead they overworked and instilled a false pressure on developer and a budget that would ultimetly give in.
There are a few things that we can learn from all development(OS/Software) companies- some good and some bad.
I for one, thank Microsoft for the Updates as I have had trouble with the CD burning software and my video card (the updates fix these, so thank you Microsoft)
I think this has been expressed earlier in this thread, but I thought it
was worth making clear.
All software shipped on CDs will take somewhere between 3 and 6 weeks to master, manufacture, package, and ship, at a minimum. During this time, if the QE organization is worth its pay, there will be a number of bugs and other deficiencies found. And bear in mind, the code is probably frozen for final testing for several weeks before this process begins.
The CDs cannot be altered, since the code has long since frozen and the “gold” CD mastered. So, engineers continue to make fixes, and get “day 1” patches ready to go. It is actually a credit to Microsoft that they’ve continued to fix code and make patches availble from day one.
That 20MB is actually astonishingly small, in my mind. Considering the sheer number of developers and testers Microsoft undoubtedly employs (not to mention their typical software quality), it surprises me that 20MB is all they have.
Brent Casavant
P.S. This is totally embarrasing — I never imagined I’d defend the Evil Empire in public.
>>Actually, we went through three pre-release(BETA) versions of Mac OsX…and it still was not ready for public consumption in March/April.<<
I can’t see where the 3 releases came from, I can acknowledge 2 at best. I was one of the beta testers for Mac OS X and was very impressed with how the beta program worked. I was not impressed with the original release of Mac OS X due to performance issues, not in anything lacking (except for CD burning, which I don’t do on an everyday basis). So I can agree that the release in March was beta part II, but I have been keeping up with the beta program on XP since Whistler was first announced and they went through a good number of revisions… sorry but 20mb of updates is quite demanding for just being a day after the unveiling.
I don’t care either way, I am not affected, but when Windows users give Apple and its Mac OS users such crap about Mac OS X since its release, I feel that I should raise a flag when the same reality trip has become apparent for those who point fingers!!!
When ford screw a little thing on their car, call it a radio button or a window rubber seal, they took back the entire car and they fix it.
M$ should do the same thing, end of the story. Recall for free all the XP disk or send fixed new one. And if the OS was pre-instaled (for newbie PC) take all the hardware back.
i just HATE having to use 4 CD to install window after it’s completly biodegraded (yes XP is stable for now, see you back in 6 month).
M$ should start already to be responsable because they will see this a lot with the Xbox.
How is M$ going to supply people with little or no Internet with the stable OS they were promised… Answer, their not.. M$ don’t really care about the average homeuser, because they only account for around 5% of the cash they are going to collect on XP… Corporate users, M$ would have their lips prem. fixed to their asses, that’s were the moey REALLY is..
I just rant because the can just ship XP with that patch bundled inside (minicd won´t cost so much…) and if the spent 1billion for unsueful advertising campaing that can spend 1/1000000 for replacing it…
I does not do what they claim, period. It crashes, big time. It askes to send info to Microsoft regarding fatal errors etc. It also sends a dump of anything that was on your screen! Backward compatability – what a joke, that does nothing to further the industry. All your Norton products are useless. Even Diskeeper needs an upgrade – NO ITS NOT FREE. Dreamweaver has issues with the new OS and the patch still prevents me from viewing a frames based page in my default browser. I also have a series of memory management issues with XP that were not apparent with 2000. I look forward to SP6 than I might try it again.
Mac Os X wents through many update too … the 10.0.1 to the 10.0.3 to finnish to a 10.1 … Sorry CatBeMac, Mac OS X was crap too so ?
Is is MS’ responsibility to make sure that every application under the sun runs with their no OS with 0 problems? Or would that be the responsiblity of the app’s vendor (at least a joint responsibility with MS, I’m sure they have the phone number, e-mail, etc.). I’m sure Macromedia knew there was a problem with Dreamweaver months ago. Disk defragmentation and anti-virus utilities are an entirely different story. They are, by nature, closely tied to the way the OS does things.
What crashes? The OS or IE?
Sending info to MS greatly increases the chances that they can find the source of the problem. Anyone who’s had to debug an application in the field and can’t repro the problem in the office would kill for this capability. AFAIK, a dump of memory, (including the libraries loaded, other applications that are running, etc.) is all that is sent to MS. This is incredibly valuable information when trying to track down a bug you can’t repro. Because of the number of people and the variation of applications, hardware, etc. that could be running on any given computer this type of postmortem dump invaluable.
People should find another reason to bash MS, because stability/reliability isn’t going to be much of a problem anymore. 🙂
> You seem to forget that Micosoft has to pay
> thousands of employees from you $250. The
> commercial Linux vendors have only a friction
> of employees to pay.
So what ? This is not an argument, it is their problem to provide good products/services. When I compare software, and when I have to compare prices, I don’t care if this one had lots of employees etc. Just final products count, nothing else.
A few people have made note that software without bugs is unavoidable. I disagree:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
printf(“Hello World!\n”);
return 0;
}
Yes, the program is short, but can you spot any bugs? It will *always* carry out its intended purpose, without crashing, or other strange things happening.
Well, looks like I bugged my own code a bit here… mumble, mumble, forcing me to eat my own words, mumble, mumble.
Guess the software running these forums thought I inserted HTML code. After include should be the less than sign, “stdio.h”, then the greater than sign.
With all due respect, but the above snip code does not even compile with my compiler. It HAS bugs!
#include should have been #include <stdio.h>
Also, by comparing “Hello World” to millions of lines of code, is just laughable.
I bet that even a simple C/C++ program has bugs. The bugs would not necessarily be in the actual code, but… in the compiler! Have you ever thought that? That sometimes the bugs are in the compiler and surrounded libraries and not necessarily in your code?
Oh, I see.<BR>
As far as I know, I have not HTML cruncher code in my site. I have the “(Please use HTML only if needed)” sign there from day 1. It is the browser who decided to not include that tag as a text.
<P>
Changing #include to #include won’t work.
But, that’s an interseting thought Eugenia on compiler bugs. Then again MS use VC++ don’t they?
>Changing #include to #include won’t work.
I had it right (Peter too). But the browser takes out the stdio.h word because it thinks that it is an HTML tag. People writting code here should use the PRE tag.
>But, that’s an interseting thought Eugenia on compiler bugs. Then again MS use VC++ don’t they?
What is your point? That gcc do not have bugs? 😮 Don’t forget that VC++ is using the Intel Proton compiler. And the Intel Proton compiler is the best you can get for x86. And yes, it still has bugs no matter how cool it is.
BTW, the above Hello World program has a a more deep “bug”. Forget the compiler and libraries bugs for now. I am talking about the implementation of the author.
WHAT IF printf() fails? The program always return a 0 but not an error code!
And if you think that this is an overkill case, think again.
I had cases where printf was redirecting to a file and the disk was full. Boom! Printf failed.
What if the program is run as >/dev/0 under Unix? Boom! Printf fails!
What if that program runs in a system that has no output or terminal?
There is no error code returned!
The POSIX Guide says that you can implement and use any function you want, BUT you have to ALWAYS return an Error Code if the given function fails. Now, no one does that of course for things like printf(), but that’s what the Guide says.
Now, add all the compiler and library bugs and as soon you have more than a few hundred lines of code, I can bet my head that you will have bugs, no matter how much kick ass programmer you may be.
Just my 0.2 Greek Drachmas. ;D
I know you had it right thus the
I didn’t know VC++ used the Intel Proton compiler.
>I didn’t know VC++ used the Intel Proton compiler.
There was some <A HREF=”http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=56“>discussion</a&… about that on OSNews 2 months ago.
Ah I’ve seen that on Intel’s site they didn’t call it Proton.
The linux version is free if you don’t need any support.
It would have been nice if Intel had done the same with the Windows version. Borland did it with their complier a while ago realeasing the command line part of C++ builder.
“It crashes, big time.”
Funny how only unreasonable people with poor ideas seem to think so. Most of us have had good experiences with its stability.
“Backward compatability – what a joke, that does nothing to further the industry.”
I suppose having companies spend billions upon billions of dollars to make programs work with a new OS “furthers the industry.” Oh wait, by “industry” you meant “kewl technology,” right? Well, I can name a crapload of cool technology that is worthless because of what it doesn’t support.
“All your Norton products are useless.”
And dammit, my answering machine won’t work with my cell phone. Who’d have thought that a low-level system utility wouldn’t work with a completely different system/filesystem/kernel/etc.? Boy, that sure caught me off guard.
“Even Diskeeper needs an upgrade – NO ITS NOT FREE.”
And this is somehow Microsoft’s fault, right? Even though five seconds ago you were bitching that backwards compatability does nothing to further the industry…
“Dreamweaver has issues with the new OS”
Again, I suppose this is also Microsoft’s fault. Because we all expect absolutely perfect backwards compatability with tens of thousands of programs. How reasonable. The OS must really suck if it doesn’t provide it.
“I also have a series of memory management issues with XP that were not apparent with 2000.”
Ah, the favorite tool of the Microsoft-haters: the vague, nondescript allusion to a technical problem with no proof of its existence.
I certainly wouldn’t argue that WinXP is perfect, but geez guys, come on! Who could listen to–or worse, be persuaded by–this tripe? It’s not like XP is some festering pile of garbage until you get the patch; the patch fixes some rather minor issues with what was a quality product at its shipment. If you want to argue that consumers shouldn’t accept software with any bugs whatsoever, fine. I can fully sympathize with that. However, I hope you enjoy using a computer that does almost nothing. Ford’s car, to use one poster’s example, doesn’t have to interact with tens of thousands of programs, drivers, and nearly infinite different hardware configurations.
I can many faults with WinXP, as I can with all OSes. That’s why it’s so sad to see people using the same stupid arguments over and over again. Face reality: by and large, WinXP is fast, stable, and supports most programs and pieces of hardware. Therefore, it has a leg up on pretty much every other OS out there. So you should really be thinking of features other OSes could be providing to counterbalance rather than rehashing the same (largely untrue) arguments over and over.
>>…WinXP is fast, stable, and supports most programs and pieces of hardware. Therefore, it has a leg up on pretty much every other OS out there.<<
Well except it doesn’t have its leg up on Mac OS X 10.1 quite yet!
Sorry Microsoft still has a learning curve to overcome, and oh yeah I do not own or use Windows XP, but my 2 friends from work do and I have had a couple of sessions so far on it. The interface is nice and I am glad to see that they appreciate that the GUIs looks are important. I still think Apple did a better job of redefining the GUI once again Aqua is still king over Luna!!
I will try to get a real test drive on XP on my friends new HP laptop before passing anymore judgements without getting a real feel for what is new and different. I left the Windows world when Windows 98 hit the shelves and my old PC (Windows 95) has not been powered on in 3 years and I use Windows NT 4 (service pack 5) at work and I hate it with much passion. But 95% of my work involves Sun’s Solaris 7 and I pretty much came from the VMS world from my past work, so I am a weird breed indeed!
> NO THEY COULD NOT. You have no idea what you are talking about!
> Windows XP comes in millions of CDs. If they had to reprint it, take my
> word for it, you would have to pay WAY more than the $250 you mentioned so > the company gets even! Microsoft is a company, they have expenses. They do > not trash millions of CDs just like that. That would be a financial
> disaster.
I come from the cd-business. and I can tell you that the cots of a cd in this figures is less than 50cents per cd. but of course to force the costumer to load the patch down at his own cost, is much more inexpensive for Microsoft 😉
Thöms
>I come from the cd-business. and I can tell you that the cots of a cd in this figures is less than 50cents per cd
Funny that you only copied/pasted only this part of my reply to that guy earlier, and not the whole thing: “is not just the cost of the CD we are talking about, but the whole damned process to create a boxed product” that’s what costs. The process. Not the CD itself.
“Well except it doesn’t have its leg up on Mac OS X 10.1 quite yet!”
Well, seeing as WinXP supports thousands and thousands of more programs and pieces of hardware than OS X (including entire classes of hardware, such as 3D sound cards and joysticks/gamepads), I’d say XP still has a leg up on OS X in the “what you can do with it” test. However, anyone who knows me knows that I like OS X quite a lot, and think that in a year or so it could be a serious contender.
“I still think Apple did a better job of redefining the GUI once again Aqua is still king over Luna!!”
I’ll agree that Aqua looks better, but overall XP’s interface is more refined and functional. Things like consistency with right-click menus, scroll wheels, etc. really help (Carbon and Cocoa applications exhibit fairly minor but still noticable behavior differences). This is to be expected, however, because this is the sixth year of the Win9x interface and the first year of Aqua; no doubt it will be refined greatly in the upcoming years. Personally, I can’t wait.
the cost of the box is the same if i put 1 cd inside or 2, or not 😉
Okay… I can’t argue with those notions. I imagine CNET will end up doing one of those “OS Death Match” like they always do. Mac OS X beat Windows 2000 in the last one, though I thought a couple of the categories were unfair to Windows 2000, but there was one unfair category to Mac OS X as well, so it kinda went both ways… hopefully they will expand their categories to cover the whole lot… I guess we’ll see what happens?!
OK, another M$ defense coming, deploying flame shields.
Microsoft used to be really bad about releasing patches. You’d have to wait forever and then delve into the voids of the Evil Knowledge Base (of EVIL) to find your problem and a possible solution. Then came Windows 98 and, more importantly, WindowsUpdate. Apple also implemented a similar Software Update feature in OS 9 and all later versions. Now, they still waited a while to issue patches for some of their worst offenders (the original release of IE 5.0 was terrible. IE 5.01 was a miracle), but at least they were easier to get for gosh sakes. Now, many consumers don’t bother using these included utilities, but they make tech support a heck of a lot easier.
Examples:
Old way: “Oh, just go to [link to arcane Knowledge Base article] and download this and run it, then go to [another one] and…” ad infinitum.
New Way: “Click Tools, then Windows Update. Click everything under ‘Critical’ and ‘Recommended’ then get the IE x.xx Service Pack X. Click ‘Start Download’ and if you’re on a dialup, find something to do for the next few hours. Reboot.”
Without Windows Update, Windows ME would still be the nearly useless, incompatible, all-crashing piece of crap it was released as.
It’s similar on MacOS. Now, M$ has finally eaten [some, but not enough] humble pie and released a WinXP patch bundle QUICKLY. Now, 20 MB sux for all not blessed with broadband, but it’s actually smaller than a full install of IE. What has happened is that some people are willing to sacrifice ease-of-use or even change for software that will be updated as soon as or before problems arise AND MAKING THESE UPDATES EASY AND CONVENIENT. Many Free Software projects have been doing this for years *cough* Debian *cough* Free/Net/Open BSD *cough*. People are even willing to forgive showstopper bugs if they are given a fix shortly(not in a service pack released a year later, ABSOLUTELY NOT in a new release that has to be paid for). Now, I am not proclaiming that MS has changed its ways and is actually thinking of the users’ best interests at all times. I’m just saying they’re doing a LOT better than before.
Now, what they should do is give every registered customer a FREE CD if they ask for it. I mean, they PAID actual MONEY for it and it’s not like they can fix the problems themselves. And they should tell people, loudly–all over MSN or something. Something like “We know we’re not perfect! Here’s a free update if you send an email or SASE to us. We also included some neat demos and movies of XBox games. The only requirement is a working installation of WinXP, no strings, no separate activation. Feel free to distribute this CD, as we want everyone to have this update.” And don’t give me that “Microsoft can’t afford to blah blah blah” It’s bullshit. AOL/TW can afford to mail out approximately 13 basquillion free CDs a month. Most of them become coasters and frisbees. At least this CD will have something useful and necessary and reduce M$ server traffic (because we know poor IIS can’t take it) and people can use it on whatever WinXP machine they want. Apple distributed free OS X.1 upgrade CDs (or at least tried to). M$ can too, and it’d make them look good.
Just my big rant.
Another rant:
BTW, app vendors who charge for os compatibility updates SUCK ELEPHANT BUTT. I can almost understand waiting for a new release (ex: Office v.X for Mac), especially if the OS has been severely changed from the ground up (MacOS Classic vs. MacOS X and up), but WinXP is still an evolutionary step up from the NT core. App vendors should release free patches if they know the problem is theirs (and those who have the money to be in M$’ elite development program should, what with the betas and RC’s). If the problem is some feature or capability that they promised would work but broke utterly (which happens), then they should use their mighty corporate clout and bitch to M$ something fierce, lest users turn to software that WORKS with their shiny “new” OS they just shelled out too much money for.
Jahmal again
Yadda yadda …
XP has been a very stable and fast operating system since RC2 … these updates are mostly for security, which we all know is one of Microsoft’s biggest problems. That and I see a USB 2.0 beta driver on Windows Update, so some of these updates are also for experimental drivers.
Making the assumption that XP is a ‘crap’ OS just because it has a few updates the minute it comes out is ludicrious … XP runs just fine and these ‘critical updates’ don’t fix any major bugs that Microsoft had to discover post-release. You know an hour or two after the MacOSX.1 code was frozen, the developers were still sitting at their desks improving and smashing bugs for the next release … development is a continuous cycle, and I for one am glad updates are streaming out of Microsoft this quickly.