Windows 8 SP1

[Bob Henson[_2_]]

Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
is ready.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK


A book is a man's best friend, outside a horse or a dog - inside a horse
or a dog it's too dark to read anyway.

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, Bob Henson wrote:

> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
> is ready.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/

One could also say that Microsoft is being very proactive in improving
its product.

Your response to the update strikes me as radically uncalled for - and I
don't even like Windows 8...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Dave \Crash\ Dummy]

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, Bob Henson wrote:
>
>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
>> is ready.
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>
> One could also say that Microsoft is being very proactive in improving
> its product.
>
> Your response to the update strikes me as radically uncalled for - and I
> don't even like Windows 8...

IM (not very) HO, "The Register" belongs in grocery store checkout lines.
--
Crash

"Never underestimate the power of the Dark Side."
~ Obi-Wan Kenobi ~

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:20:25 -0400, Dave "Crash" Dummy wrote:

> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, Bob Henson wrote:
>>
>>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
>>> is ready.
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>>
>> One could also say that Microsoft is being very proactive in improving
>> its product.
>>
>> Your response to the update strikes me as radically uncalled for - and I
>> don't even like Windows 8...
>
> IM (not very) HO, "The Register" belongs in grocery store checkout lines.

Ah - thanks.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Bob Henson[_2_]]

On 10/10/2012 7:46 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, Bob Henson wrote:
>
>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
>> is ready.
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>
> One could also say that Microsoft is being very proactive in improving
> its product.

You could - but you'd have to be looking at things from a very odd angle
to construe it as anything but a part-ready product rushed out before it
was ready, and needing to be patched to make it usable. I've used it,
and it certainly isn't ready.

> Your response to the update strikes me as radically uncalled for - and I
> don't even like Windows 8...

Why? It's an obvious and logical response to the facts.


--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK


Very funny Scotty - now beam down my clothes.

[Bob Henson[_2_]]

On 10/10/2012 8:20 PM, Dave "Crash" Dummy wrote:
> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, Bob Henson wrote:
>>
>>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
>>> is ready.
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>>
>> One could also say that Microsoft is being very proactive in improving
>> its product.
>>
>> Your response to the update strikes me as radically uncalled for - and I
>> don't even like Windows 8...
>
> IM (not very) HO, "The Register" belongs in grocery store checkout lines.
>

I don't follow that comment? What does a technology magazine have to do
with groceries? If you are attempting, unsuccessfully, to be derogatory
about a very well respected technological magazine for its being
critical of Windows 8, it strikes me as a very childish comment,
especially as every other article in that I've seen about Windows 8 is
of the same critical tone. Perhaps you've just had a bad day.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK


Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:36:48 +0100, Bob Henson wrote:

> On 10/10/2012 7:46 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, Bob Henson wrote:
>>
>>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
>>> is ready.
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>>
>> One could also say that Microsoft is being very proactive in improving
>> its product.
>
> You could - but you'd have to be looking at things from a very odd angle
> to construe it as anything but a part-ready product rushed out before it
> was ready, and needing to be patched to make it usable. I've used it,
> and it certainly isn't ready.
>
>> Your response to the update strikes me as radically uncalled for - and I
>> don't even like Windows 8...
>
> Why? It's an obvious and logical response to the facts.

The facts as construed by you...

As for its being a product rushed out before it was ready, it hasn't
been released - had you noticed?

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Paul]

Bob Henson wrote:
>
> On 10/10/2012 7:46 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, Bob Henson wrote:
>>
>>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
>>> is ready.
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>> One could also say that Microsoft is being very proactive in improving
>> its product.
>
> You could - but you'd have to be looking at things from a very odd angle
> to construe it as anything but a part-ready product rushed out before it
> was ready, and needing to be patched to make it usable. I've used it,
> and it certainly isn't ready.
>
>> Your response to the update strikes me as radically uncalled for - and I
>> don't even like Windows 8...
>
> Why? It's an obvious and logical response to the facts.
>
>

What it means, for anyone not paying attention, is a
re-definition of release labeling.

Alpha, Beta, RTM.

becomes

Alpha, RTM, SP1

and means the RTM was "just a beta".

No end user should care about this, but it does
mean for an OEM like Dell/HP/Acer, they end up
being "squeezed" when it comes to proper product
test before release. How well tested will your
new Dell with Windows 8 be, when you get it in
a few weeks ??? That's the issue as I see it.

This is a lot like handing in a homework assignment
late, and sliding it underneath the professor's door sill :-)
Not impressed.

Paul

[...winston[_2_]]

There's a lot more in play than just MSFT on this subject (including OEM readiness relative to the initial Win8 RTM).

While the update may be welcomed or thought of as controversial including the previously planned (and public notified) updates to
the MSFT store apps...if you're running Win8 RTM now or later after GA for the most part you have/will have a better product with
more robustness and features.

The real issue imo, isn't the what's been fed (updates)...it's the digestion that provides for pro/con discussion and those sides
afiacs haven't changed much since Windows 95.

--
....winston
msft mvp mail


"Paul" wrote in message ...

Bob Henson wrote:
>
> On 10/10/2012 7:46 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, Bob Henson wrote:
>>
>>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
>>> is ready.
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>> One could also say that Microsoft is being very proactive in improving
>> its product.
>
> You could - but you'd have to be looking at things from a very odd angle
> to construe it as anything but a part-ready product rushed out before it
> was ready, and needing to be patched to make it usable. I've used it,
> and it certainly isn't ready.
>
>> Your response to the update strikes me as radically uncalled for - and I
>> don't even like Windows 8...
>
> Why? It's an obvious and logical response to the facts.
>
>

What it means, for anyone not paying attention, is a
re-definition of release labeling.

Alpha, Beta, RTM.

becomes

Alpha, RTM, SP1

and means the RTM was "just a beta".

No end user should care about this, but it does
mean for an OEM like Dell/HP/Acer, they end up
being "squeezed" when it comes to proper product
test before release. How well tested will your
new Dell with Windows 8 be, when you get it in
a few weeks ??? That's the issue as I see it.

This is a lot like handing in a homework assignment
late, and sliding it underneath the professor's door sill :-)
Not impressed.

Paul

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
wrote in article >...
>
> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
> is ready.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/

This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as I
recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
are getting a bit better at delivering updates.

As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after
the OS is released.

--
Zaphod

Adventurer, ex-hippie, good-timer (crook? quite possibly),
manic self-publicist, terrible bad at personal relationships,
often thought to be completely out to lunch.

[Bob Henson[_2_]]

On 11/10/2012 2:57 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
> wrote in article >...
>>
>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
>> is ready.
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>
> This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as I
> recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
> release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
> are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
>
> As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
> release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after
> the OS is released.
>

But not often *before* it is released.
--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK


Dyslexia lures, KO!

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:30:33 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
wrote in article >...
>
> On 11/10/2012 2:57 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
> > wrote in article >...
> >>
> >> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
> >> is ready.
> >>
> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
> >
> > This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as I
> > recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
> > release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
> > are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
> >
> > As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
> > release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after
> > the OS is released.
> >
>
> But not often *before* it is released.


And I repeat:

> > this just means they are getting a bit better at delivering
> > updates.

Or do you think they should wait longer before releasing the updates
for some reason? It is foolish to think that all of the bugs that the
updates released shortly after Win 7 etc. were released to fix were
discovered and fixed after the OS was released. So, as with previous
OS releases, folks on the consumer preview and early adopters of the
RTM reported bugs and MS fixed and tested some of them and released
them - in this case, more quickly than before. What in the world is
wrong with that?

--
Zaphod

Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster: A cocktail based on Janx Spirit.
The effect of one is like having your brain smashed out
by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick.

[Bob Henson[_2_]]

On 11/10/2012 3:39 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:30:33 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
> wrote in article >...
>>
>> On 11/10/2012 2:57 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
>>> wrote in article >...
>>>>
>>>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
>>>> is ready.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>>>
>>> This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as I
>>> recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
>>> release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
>>> are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
>>>
>>> As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
>>> release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after
>>> the OS is released.
>>>
>>
>> But not often *before* it is released.
>
>
> And I repeat:
>
>>> this just means they are getting a bit better at delivering
>>> updates.
>
> Or do you think they should wait longer before releasing the updates
> for some reason? It is foolish to think that all of the bugs that the
> updates released shortly after Win 7 etc. were released to fix were
> discovered and fixed after the OS was released. So, as with previous
> OS releases, folks on the consumer preview and early adopters of the
> RTM reported bugs and MS fixed and tested some of them and released
> them - in this case, more quickly than before. What in the world is
> wrong with that?
>

Nothing - but all the beta testing and changes should be done before the
release is announced and initiated. Otherwise they are taking money for
a product known to be faulty. Naturally other things will need patching
from time to time as the hackers get smarter and get to grips with the
newly released software, but on release day the product should be
complete as far as Microsoft know.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK


No matter how much you push the envelope, it'll still be stationery

[Chris S.[_4_]]

"Bob Henson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On 11/10/2012 3:39 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:30:33 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
>> wrote in article >...
>>>
>>> On 11/10/2012 2:57 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
>>>> wrote in article >...
>>>>>
>>>>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
>>>>> is ready.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>>>>
>>>> This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as I
>>>> recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
>>>> release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
>>>> are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
>>>>
>>>> As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
>>>> release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after
>>>> the OS is released.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But not often *before* it is released.
>>
>>
>> And I repeat:
>>
>>>> this just means they are getting a bit better at delivering
>>>> updates.
>>
>> Or do you think they should wait longer before releasing the updates
>> for some reason? It is foolish to think that all of the bugs that the
>> updates released shortly after Win 7 etc. were released to fix were
>> discovered and fixed after the OS was released. So, as with previous
>> OS releases, folks on the consumer preview and early adopters of the
>> RTM reported bugs and MS fixed and tested some of them and released
>> them - in this case, more quickly than before. What in the world is
>> wrong with that?
>>
>
> Nothing - but all the beta testing and changes should be done before the
> release is announced and initiated. Otherwise they are taking money for
> a product known to be faulty. Naturally other things will need patching
> from time to time as the hackers get smarter and get to grips with the
> newly released software, but on release day the product should be
> complete as far as Microsoft know.
>
> --
> Bob
> Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK
>
ALL software products are "known to be faulty" when they are released.
Is this your first computer?

Chris

[ray]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:57:05 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
> wrote in article >...
>>
>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
>> is ready.
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>
> This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as I
> recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
> release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
> are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
>
> As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
> release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after the
> OS is released.

Debian Stable. It has been thoroughly tested by the time it is released.
Of course there are security updates as the issues are detected.

[Bob Henson[_2_]]

On 11/10/2012 4:29 PM, Chris S. wrote:
>
> "Bob Henson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> On 11/10/2012 3:39 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:30:33 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
>>> wrote in article >...
>>>>
>>>> On 11/10/2012 2:57 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
>>>>> wrote in article >...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
>>>>>> is ready.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as I
>>>>> recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
>>>>> release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
>>>>> are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
>>>>>
>>>>> As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
>>>>> release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after
>>>>> the OS is released.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But not often *before* it is released.
>>>
>>>
>>> And I repeat:
>>>
>>>>> this just means they are getting a bit better at delivering
>>>>> updates.
>>>
>>> Or do you think they should wait longer before releasing the updates
>>> for some reason? It is foolish to think that all of the bugs that the
>>> updates released shortly after Win 7 etc. were released to fix were
>>> discovered and fixed after the OS was released. So, as with previous
>>> OS releases, folks on the consumer preview and early adopters of the
>>> RTM reported bugs and MS fixed and tested some of them and released
>>> them - in this case, more quickly than before. What in the world is
>>> wrong with that?
>>>
>>
>> Nothing - but all the beta testing and changes should be done before the
>> release is announced and initiated. Otherwise they are taking money for
>> a product known to be faulty. Naturally other things will need patching
>> from time to time as the hackers get smarter and get to grips with the
>> newly released software, but on release day the product should be
>> complete as far as Microsoft know.
>>
>> --
>> Bob
>> Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK
>>
> ALL software products are "known to be faulty" when they are released.
> Is this your first computer?

Perfection is hard to achieve, but many programs come close, and you
certainly don't have to apply a service pack on Day 1. I wrote a
pharmacy dispensing program (using DOS, and then QuickBasic) in the
early days of computing (before you were born, maybe - 1985?) of which I
sold a few copies, and no bugs were ever reported back to me. I, and
others, tested it for months - it wasn't by accident that it worked
straight out of the box. Just for one other example - there are hundreds
- I'll pick a Microsoft one. My copy of Outlook 2007 has never fallen
over since I installed it (it has had the odd background patch, of
course). Neither did the last one - 2003.

Standards have fallen, yes, but not as far as you think - there is still
some good stuff out there. Windows 8 isn't one of them. Don't worry,
Windows 9 won't be far behind. Windows 7 support will be extended long
enough for me not to care either way. But you'll have to forgive me for
laughing at Windows 8 - because that's what it is - a joke.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK


A preposition must never be used to end a sentence with.
And never start a sentence with a conjunction.

[Bob Henson[_2_]]

On 11/10/2012 4:33 PM, ray wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:57:05 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
>> wrote in article >...
>>>
>>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
>>> is ready.
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>>
>> This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as I
>> recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
>> release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
>> are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
>>
>> As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
>> release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after the
>> OS is released.
>
> Debian Stable. It has been thoroughly tested by the time it is released.
> Of course there are security updates as the issues are detected.
>

You're correct - but even I get bored waiting for new Debian releases :-)

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK


It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have
learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

On 11 Oct 2012 15:33:10 GMT, "ray" > wrote in article
>...
>
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:57:05 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
> > wrote in article >...
> >>
> >> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
> >> is ready.
> >>
> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
> >
> > This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as I
> > recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
> > release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
> > are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
> >
> > As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
> > release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after the
> > OS is released.
>
> Debian Stable. It has been thoroughly tested by the time it is released.
> Of course there are security updates as the issues are detected.

I said "modern"... ;-)


--
Zaphod

The secret of flying is to hurl yourself to the ground, and miss.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:29:42 -0400, "Chris S." <cside38
@nospamverizon.net> wrote in article >...
>
> "Bob Henson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > On 11/10/2012 3:39 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:30:33 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
> >> wrote in article >...
> >>>
> >>> On 11/10/2012 2:57 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
> >>>> wrote in article >...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
> >>>>> is ready.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
> >>>>
> >>>> This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as I
> >>>> recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
> >>>> release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
> >>>> are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
> >>>>
> >>>> As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
> >>>> release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after
> >>>> the OS is released.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> But not often *before* it is released.
> >>
> >>
> >> And I repeat:
> >>
> >>>> this just means they are getting a bit better at delivering
> >>>> updates.
> >>
> >> Or do you think they should wait longer before releasing the updates
> >> for some reason? It is foolish to think that all of the bugs that the
> >> updates released shortly after Win 7 etc. were released to fix were
> >> discovered and fixed after the OS was released. So, as with previous
> >> OS releases, folks on the consumer preview and early adopters of the
> >> RTM reported bugs and MS fixed and tested some of them and released
> >> them - in this case, more quickly than before. What in the world is
> >> wrong with that?
> >>
> >
> > Nothing - but all the beta testing and changes should be done before the
> > release is announced and initiated. Otherwise they are taking money for
> > a product known to be faulty. Naturally other things will need patching
> > from time to time as the hackers get smarter and get to grips with the
> > newly released software, but on release day the product should be
> > complete as far as Microsoft know.
> >
> > --
> > Bob
> > Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK
> >
> ALL software products are "known to be faulty" when they are released.
> Is this your first computer?
>
>

+1

--
Zaphod

Arthur: All my life I've had this strange feeling that there's
something big and sinister going on in the world.
Slartibartfast: No, that's perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the
universe gets that.

[Chris S.[_4_]]

"Bob Henson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On 11/10/2012 4:33 PM, ray wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:57:05 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
>>> wrote in article >...
>>>>
>>>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
>>>> is ready.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>>>
>>> This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as I
>>> recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
>>> release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
>>> are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
>>>
>>> As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
>>> release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after the
>>> OS is released.
>>
>> Debian Stable. It has been thoroughly tested by the time it is released.
>> Of course there are security updates as the issues are detected.
>>
>
> You're correct - but even I get bored waiting for new Debian releases :-)
>
> --
> Bob
> Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

Born in 1938. Got my EE from Purdue in 1962.
Semi retired from this business, but still manage to keep up....

Chris

[Bob Henson[_2_]]

On 11/10/2012 4:52 PM, Chris S. wrote:
>
> "Bob Henson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> On 11/10/2012 4:33 PM, ray wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:57:05 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
>>>> wrote in article >...
>>>>>
>>>>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
>>>>> is ready.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>>>>
>>>> This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as I
>>>> recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
>>>> release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
>>>> are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
>>>>
>>>> As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
>>>> release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after the
>>>> OS is released.
>>>
>>> Debian Stable. It has been thoroughly tested by the time it is released.
>>> Of course there are security updates as the issues are detected.
>>>
>>
>> You're correct - but even I get bored waiting for new Debian releases :-)
>>
>> --
>> Bob
>> Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK
>
> Born in 1938. Got my EE from Purdue in 1962.
> Semi retired from this business, but still manage to keep up....

My mistake - it sounded like a kid's comment.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK


Monday is a terrible way to spend 1/7th of your life.

[Bob Henson[_2_]]

On 11/10/2012 4:52 PM, Chris S. wrote:
>
> "Bob Henson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> On 11/10/2012 4:33 PM, ray wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:57:05 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
>>>> wrote in article >...
>>>>>
>>>>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
>>>>> is ready.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>>>>
>>>> This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as I
>>>> recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
>>>> release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
>>>> are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
>>>>
>>>> As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
>>>> release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after the
>>>> OS is released.
>>>
>>> Debian Stable. It has been thoroughly tested by the time it is released.
>>> Of course there are security updates as the issues are detected.
>>>
>>
>> You're correct - but even I get bored waiting for new Debian releases :-)
>>
>> --
>> Bob
>> Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK
>
> Born in 1938. Got my EE from Purdue in 1962.
> Semi retired from this business, but still manage to keep up....

My mistake - it sounded like a kid's comment.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK


Monday is a terrible way to spend 1/7th of your life.

[ray]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:51:20 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:

> On 11 Oct 2012 15:33:10 GMT, "ray" > wrote in article
> >...
>>
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:57:05 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
>> > wrote in article >...
>> >>
>> >> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major
>> >> fix is ready.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>> >
>> > This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as
>> > I recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly
>> > after release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just
>> > means they are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
>> >
>> > As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
>> > release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after
>> > the OS is released.
>>
>> Debian Stable. It has been thoroughly tested by the time it is
>> released. Of course there are security updates as the issues are
>> detected.
>
> I said "modern"... ;-)

Quantify it however you want, but there are certainly levels of
useability. Years ago I learned never to install any version x.0 of an OS
from DEC - for the simple reason that there were too many bugs to make it
really useable in a scientific setting. I have yet to see MS release an
OS in which the initial offering was anything I would consider to be much
better than a beta test release.

[ray]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:51:20 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:

> On 11 Oct 2012 15:33:10 GMT, "ray" > wrote in article
> >...
>>
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:57:05 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
>> > wrote in article >...
>> >>
>> >> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major
>> >> fix is ready.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>> >
>> > This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as
>> > I recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly
>> > after release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just
>> > means they are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
>> >
>> > As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
>> > release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after
>> > the OS is released.
>>
>> Debian Stable. It has been thoroughly tested by the time it is
>> released. Of course there are security updates as the issues are
>> detected.
>
> I said "modern"... ;-)

Quantify it however you want, but there are certainly levels of
useability. Years ago I learned never to install any version x.0 of an OS
from DEC - for the simple reason that there were too many bugs to make it
really useable in a scientific setting. I have yet to see MS release an
OS in which the initial offering was anything I would consider to be much
better than a beta test release.

[Chris S.[_4_]]

"Bob Henson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On 11/10/2012 4:52 PM, Chris S. wrote:
>>
>> "Bob Henson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/10/2012 4:33 PM, ray wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:57:05 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
>>>>> wrote in article >...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major
>>>>>> fix
>>>>>> is ready.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as
>>>>> I
>>>>> recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
>>>>> release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
>>>>> are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
>>>>>
>>>>> As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
>>>>> release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after
>>>>> the
>>>>> OS is released.
>>>>
>>>> Debian Stable. It has been thoroughly tested by the time it is
>>>> released.
>>>> Of course there are security updates as the issues are detected.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're correct - but even I get bored waiting for new Debian releases
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bob
>>> Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK
>>
>> Born in 1938. Got my EE from Purdue in 1962.
>> Semi retired from this business, but still manage to keep up....
>
> My mistake - it sounded like a kid's comment.
>
Perhaps to a kid, it would! ;)

Chris

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

On 11 Oct 2012 16:27:49 GMT, "ray" > wrote in article
>...
>
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:51:20 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>
> > On 11 Oct 2012 15:33:10 GMT, "ray" > wrote in article
> > >...
> >>
> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:57:05 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
> >> > wrote in article >...
> >> >>
> >> >> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major
> >> >> fix is ready.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
> >> >
> >> > This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as
> >> > I recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly
> >> > after release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just
> >> > means they are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
> >> >
> >> > As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
> >> > release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after
> >> > the OS is released.
> >>
> >> Debian Stable. It has been thoroughly tested by the time it is
> >> released. Of course there are security updates as the issues are
> >> detected.
> >
> > I said "modern"... ;-)
>
> Quantify it however you want, but there are certainly levels of
> useability.

Missed the smiley face did you?

> Years ago I learned never to install any version x.0 of an OS
> from DEC - for the simple reason that there were too many bugs to make it
> really useable in a scientific setting. I have yet to see MS release an
> OS in which the initial offering was anything I would consider to be much
> better than a beta test release.

Same could be said for every Linux release out there, with the possible
exception of Debian stable - but then, almost nobody runs pure Debian
stable because it is so out of date.

--
Zaphod

"The best Bang since the Big One" - Eccentrica Gallumbits

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:42:59 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
wrote in article >...
>
> On 11/10/2012 4:29 PM, Chris S. wrote:
> >
> > "Bob Henson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/10/2012 3:39 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:30:33 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
> >>> wrote in article >...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/10/2012 2:57 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
> >>>>> wrote in article >...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
> >>>>>> is ready.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as I
> >>>>> recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
> >>>>> release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
> >>>>> are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
> >>>>> release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after
> >>>>> the OS is released.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> But not often *before* it is released.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> And I repeat:
> >>>
> >>>>> this just means they are getting a bit better at delivering
> >>>>> updates.
> >>>
> >>> Or do you think they should wait longer before releasing the updates
> >>> for some reason? It is foolish to think that all of the bugs that the
> >>> updates released shortly after Win 7 etc. were released to fix were
> >>> discovered and fixed after the OS was released. So, as with previous
> >>> OS releases, folks on the consumer preview and early adopters of the
> >>> RTM reported bugs and MS fixed and tested some of them and released
> >>> them - in this case, more quickly than before. What in the world is
> >>> wrong with that?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Nothing - but all the beta testing and changes should be done before the
> >> release is announced and initiated. Otherwise they are taking money for
> >> a product known to be faulty. Naturally other things will need patching
> >> from time to time as the hackers get smarter and get to grips with the
> >> newly released software, but on release day the product should be
> >> complete as far as Microsoft know.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bob
> >> Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK
> >>
> > ALL software products are "known to be faulty" when they are released.
> > Is this your first computer?
>
> Perfection is hard to achieve, but many programs come close, and you
> certainly don't have to apply a service pack on Day 1. I wrote a
> pharmacy dispensing program (using DOS, and then QuickBasic) in the
> early days of computing (before you were born, maybe - 1985?) of which I
> sold a few copies, and no bugs were ever reported back to me. I, and
> others, tested it for months - it wasn't by accident that it worked
> straight out of the box.


I'd wager I could find at least one.

> Just for one other example - there are hundreds
> - I'll pick a Microsoft one. My copy of Outlook 2007 has never fallen
> over since I installed it (it has had the odd background patch, of
> course). Neither did the last one - 2003.


You must not be particularly hard on software then - I and many others
have see plenty of issues with Outlook.

> Standards have fallen, yes, but not as far as you think - there is
still
> some good stuff out there. Windows 8 isn't one of them. Don't worry,
> Windows 9 won't be far behind. Windows 7 support will be extended long
> enough for me not to care either way. But you'll have to forgive me for
> laughing at Windows 8 - because that's what it is - a joke.

It may be a joke, but the big problem isn't quality of code, it is the
UI itself.

--
Zaphod

Vell, Zaphod's just zis guy, ya know? - Gag Halfrunt

[Ed Cryer]

Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:29:42 -0400, "Chris S." <cside38
> @nospamverizon.net> wrote in article >...
>>
>> "Bob Henson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/10/2012 3:39 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:30:33 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
>>>> wrote in article >...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/10/2012 2:57 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
>>>>>> wrote in article >...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
>>>>>>> is ready.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as I
>>>>>> recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
>>>>>> release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
>>>>>> are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
>>>>>> release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after
>>>>>> the OS is released.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But not often *before* it is released.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And I repeat:
>>>>
>>>>>> this just means they are getting a bit better at delivering
>>>>>> updates.
>>>>
>>>> Or do you think they should wait longer before releasing the updates
>>>> for some reason? It is foolish to think that all of the bugs that the
>>>> updates released shortly after Win 7 etc. were released to fix were
>>>> discovered and fixed after the OS was released. So, as with previous
>>>> OS releases, folks on the consumer preview and early adopters of the
>>>> RTM reported bugs and MS fixed and tested some of them and released
>>>> them - in this case, more quickly than before. What in the world is
>>>> wrong with that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing - but all the beta testing and changes should be done before the
>>> release is announced and initiated. Otherwise they are taking money for
>>> a product known to be faulty. Naturally other things will need patching
>>> from time to time as the hackers get smarter and get to grips with the
>>> newly released software, but on release day the product should be
>>> complete as far as Microsoft know.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bob
>>> Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK
>>>
>> ALL software products are "known to be faulty" when they are released.
>> Is this your first computer?
>>
>>
>
> +1
>

-1

When I spent a whole weekend on site testing a DOE stock-system on an
old ICL mainframe I certainly didn't know it to be faulty.
It did show up some hiccups, but we all mucked in and ironed them out.
And when we gave the go ahead to move into parallel running with the old
system, we didn't know that it was faulty.
And after amendments discovered at that phase we certainly didn't know
that it was faulty when we gave the green light for it to move "live".

Ok, so it did show up one or two problems even after that. But we got
the blame; and deservedly. For what? For insufficient testing!!!

Ed

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:50:56 +0100, "Ed Cryer" >
wrote in article >...
>
> Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:29:42 -0400, "Chris S." <cside38
> > @nospamverizon.net> wrote in article >...
> >>
> >> "Bob Henson" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 11/10/2012 3:39 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:30:33 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
> >>>> wrote in article >...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 11/10/2012 2:57 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
> >>>>>> wrote in article >...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
> >>>>>>> is ready.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as I
> >>>>>> recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
> >>>>>> release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
> >>>>>> are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
> >>>>>> release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after
> >>>>>> the OS is released.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But not often *before* it is released.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> And I repeat:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> this just means they are getting a bit better at delivering
> >>>>>> updates.
> >>>>
> >>>> Or do you think they should wait longer before releasing the updates
> >>>> for some reason? It is foolish to think that all of the bugs that the
> >>>> updates released shortly after Win 7 etc. were released to fix were
> >>>> discovered and fixed after the OS was released. So, as with previous
> >>>> OS releases, folks on the consumer preview and early adopters of the
> >>>> RTM reported bugs and MS fixed and tested some of them and released
> >>>> them - in this case, more quickly than before. What in the world is
> >>>> wrong with that?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Nothing - but all the beta testing and changes should be done before the
> >>> release is announced and initiated. Otherwise they are taking money for
> >>> a product known to be faulty. Naturally other things will need patching
> >>> from time to time as the hackers get smarter and get to grips with the
> >>> newly released software, but on release day the product should be
> >>> complete as far as Microsoft know.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Bob
> >>> Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK
> >>>
> >> ALL software products are "known to be faulty" when they are released.
> >> Is this your first computer?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > +1
> >
>
> -1
>
> When I spent a whole weekend on site testing a DOE stock-system on an
> old ICL mainframe I certainly didn't know it to be faulty.
> It did show up some hiccups, but we all mucked in and ironed them out.
> And when we gave the go ahead to move into parallel running with the old
> system, we didn't know that it was faulty.
> And after amendments discovered at that phase we certainly didn't know
> that it was faulty when we gave the green light for it to move "live".
>
> Ok, so it did show up one or two problems even after that. But we got
> the blame; and deservedly. For what? For insufficient testing!!!
>
>
I'll see your -1 and raise you -2.

You may not know of any specific bugs in the software when you release
it, but you *should* know that there are bugs in it somewhere. Almost
certainly, any software more complicated than a "hello world" routine
contains at least one bug. Programmer's axiom: Working code is not
bug-free code.

--
Zaphod

"So [Trillian], two heads is what does it for a girl?"
"...Anything else [Zaphod]'s got two of?"
- Arthur Dent

[Ken Blake[_4_]]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:30:33 +0100, Bob Henson >
wrote:

>
>
> On 11/10/2012 2:57 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
> > wrote in article >...
> >>
> >> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
> >> is ready.
> >>
> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
> >
> > This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as I
> > recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
> > release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
> > are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
> >
> > As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
> > release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after
> > the OS is released.
> >
>
> But not often *before* it is released.


It's not really before it's released. Windows 8 was released on August
15. True, it isn't yet for sale, but it was released, not only to
manufacturers but also to those of us with MSDN or Technet
subscriptions. I have it here, and lots of others around the world
also do.



--
Ken Blake

[Ed Cryer]

Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:50:56 +0100, "Ed Cryer" >
> wrote in article >...
>>
>> Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:29:42 -0400, "Chris S." <cside38
>>> @nospamverizon.net> wrote in article >...
>>>>
>>>> "Bob Henson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/10/2012 3:39 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:30:33 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
>>>>>> wrote in article >...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/10/2012 2:57 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
>>>>>>>> wrote in article >...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
>>>>>>>>> is ready.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as I
>>>>>>>> recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
>>>>>>>> release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
>>>>>>>> are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
>>>>>>>> release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after
>>>>>>>> the OS is released.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But not often *before* it is released.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I repeat:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> this just means they are getting a bit better at delivering
>>>>>>>> updates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or do you think they should wait longer before releasing the updates
>>>>>> for some reason? It is foolish to think that all of the bugs that the
>>>>>> updates released shortly after Win 7 etc. were released to fix were
>>>>>> discovered and fixed after the OS was released. So, as with previous
>>>>>> OS releases, folks on the consumer preview and early adopters of the
>>>>>> RTM reported bugs and MS fixed and tested some of them and released
>>>>>> them - in this case, more quickly than before. What in the world is
>>>>>> wrong with that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing - but all the beta testing and changes should be done before the
>>>>> release is announced and initiated. Otherwise they are taking money for
>>>>> a product known to be faulty. Naturally other things will need patching
>>>>> from time to time as the hackers get smarter and get to grips with the
>>>>> newly released software, but on release day the product should be
>>>>> complete as far as Microsoft know.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Bob
>>>>> Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK
>>>>>
>>>> ALL software products are "known to be faulty" when they are released.
>>>> Is this your first computer?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>
>> -1
>>
>> When I spent a whole weekend on site testing a DOE stock-system on an
>> old ICL mainframe I certainly didn't know it to be faulty.
>> It did show up some hiccups, but we all mucked in and ironed them out.
>> And when we gave the go ahead to move into parallel running with the old
>> system, we didn't know that it was faulty.
>> And after amendments discovered at that phase we certainly didn't know
>> that it was faulty when we gave the green light for it to move "live".
>>
>> Ok, so it did show up one or two problems even after that. But we got
>> the blame; and deservedly. For what? For insufficient testing!!!
>>
>>
> I'll see your -1 and raise you -2.
>
> You may not know of any specific bugs in the software when you release
> it, but you *should* know that there are bugs in it somewhere. Almost
> certainly, any software more complicated than a "hello world" routine
> contains at least one bug. Programmer's axiom: Working code is not
> bug-free code.
>

Salesman's axiom: This is the best ever.
Customer's scepticism: Are you sure?
Salesman: Sure thing.
Customer: That's better than the guy next door. He's saying that there
are loads of bugs in his wares. Right then, I'll buy yours.

Ed
--
Two plus two equals four is only true in a rational world.
Try proving it.
You'll require the pre-existence of an axiom system which is universally
accepted.
And that axiom system will be unprovable from within the same system.
What then proves that 2+2=4?
Only a human conspiracy that it stay true.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:09:39 -0700, "Ken Blake" >
wrote in article >...
>
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:30:33 +0100, Bob Henson >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 11/10/2012 2:57 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
> > > wrote in article >...
> > >>
> > >> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
> > >> is ready.
> > >>
> > >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
> > >
> > > This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as I
> > > recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
> > > release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
> > > are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
> > >
> > > As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
> > > release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after
> > > the OS is released.
> > >
> >
> > But not often *before* it is released.
>
>
> It's not really before it's released. Windows 8 was released on August
> 15. True, it isn't yet for sale, but it was released, not only to
> manufacturers but also to those of us with MSDN or Technet
> subscriptions. I have it here, and lots of others around the world
> also do.

+1

--
Zaphod

Voted "Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe" for seven
years in a row.

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:06:38 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:50:56 +0100, "Ed Cryer" >
> wrote in article >...
>>
>> Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:29:42 -0400, "Chris S." <cside38
>>> @nospamverizon.net> wrote in article >...
>>>>
>>>> "Bob Henson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/10/2012 3:39 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:30:33 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
>>>>>> wrote in article >...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/10/2012 2:57 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
>>>>>>>> wrote in article >...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
>>>>>>>>> is ready.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as I
>>>>>>>> recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
>>>>>>>> release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
>>>>>>>> are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
>>>>>>>> release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after
>>>>>>>> the OS is released.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But not often *before* it is released.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I repeat:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> this just means they are getting a bit better at delivering
>>>>>>>> updates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or do you think they should wait longer before releasing the updates
>>>>>> for some reason? It is foolish to think that all of the bugs that the
>>>>>> updates released shortly after Win 7 etc. were released to fix were
>>>>>> discovered and fixed after the OS was released. So, as with previous
>>>>>> OS releases, folks on the consumer preview and early adopters of the
>>>>>> RTM reported bugs and MS fixed and tested some of them and released
>>>>>> them - in this case, more quickly than before. What in the world is
>>>>>> wrong with that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing - but all the beta testing and changes should be done before the
>>>>> release is announced and initiated. Otherwise they are taking money for
>>>>> a product known to be faulty. Naturally other things will need patching
>>>>> from time to time as the hackers get smarter and get to grips with the
>>>>> newly released software, but on release day the product should be
>>>>> complete as far as Microsoft know.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Bob
>>>>> Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK
>>>>>
>>>> ALL software products are "known to be faulty" when they are released.
>>>> Is this your first computer?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>
>> -1
>>
>> When I spent a whole weekend on site testing a DOE stock-system on an
>> old ICL mainframe I certainly didn't know it to be faulty.
>> It did show up some hiccups, but we all mucked in and ironed them out.
>> And when we gave the go ahead to move into parallel running with the old
>> system, we didn't know that it was faulty.
>> And after amendments discovered at that phase we certainly didn't know
>> that it was faulty when we gave the green light for it to move "live".
>>
>> Ok, so it did show up one or two problems even after that. But we got
>> the blame; and deservedly. For what? For insufficient testing!!!
>>
> I'll see your -1 and raise you -2.
>
> You may not know of any specific bugs in the software when you release
> it, but you *should* know that there are bugs in it somewhere. Almost
> certainly, any software more complicated than a "hello world" routine
> contains at least one bug. Programmer's axiom: Working code is not
> bug-free code.

Not to mention Godel's proof (or Gödel's, if you prefer).

Also, given the infrastructure behind Hello World in let's say Java or
Android programming, I wouldn't even bet on a bug-free Hello World
program :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:28:43 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch" <not-
> wrote in article
>...
>
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:06:38 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:50:56 +0100, "Ed Cryer" >
> > wrote in article >...
> >>
> >> Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:29:42 -0400, "Chris S." <cside38
> >>> @nospamverizon.net> wrote in article >...
> >>>>
> >>>> "Bob Henson" > wrote in message
> >>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 11/10/2012 3:39 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:30:33 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
> >>>>>> wrote in article >...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 11/10/2012 2:57 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
> >>>>>>>> wrote in article >...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major fix
> >>>>>>>>> is ready.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as I
> >>>>>>>> recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
> >>>>>>>> release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means they
> >>>>>>>> are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
> >>>>>>>> release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after
> >>>>>>>> the OS is released.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But not often *before* it is released.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And I repeat:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> this just means they are getting a bit better at delivering
> >>>>>>>> updates.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Or do you think they should wait longer before releasing the updates
> >>>>>> for some reason? It is foolish to think that all of the bugs that the
> >>>>>> updates released shortly after Win 7 etc. were released to fix were
> >>>>>> discovered and fixed after the OS was released. So, as with previous
> >>>>>> OS releases, folks on the consumer preview and early adopters of the
> >>>>>> RTM reported bugs and MS fixed and tested some of them and released
> >>>>>> them - in this case, more quickly than before. What in the world is
> >>>>>> wrong with that?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nothing - but all the beta testing and changes should be done before the
> >>>>> release is announced and initiated. Otherwise they are taking money for
> >>>>> a product known to be faulty. Naturally other things will need patching
> >>>>> from time to time as the hackers get smarter and get to grips with the
> >>>>> newly released software, but on release day the product should be
> >>>>> complete as far as Microsoft know.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Bob
> >>>>> Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK
> >>>>>
> >>>> ALL software products are "known to be faulty" when they are released.
> >>>> Is this your first computer?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>
> >> -1
> >>
> >> When I spent a whole weekend on site testing a DOE stock-system on an
> >> old ICL mainframe I certainly didn't know it to be faulty.
> >> It did show up some hiccups, but we all mucked in and ironed them out.
> >> And when we gave the go ahead to move into parallel running with the old
> >> system, we didn't know that it was faulty.
> >> And after amendments discovered at that phase we certainly didn't know
> >> that it was faulty when we gave the green light for it to move "live".
> >>
> >> Ok, so it did show up one or two problems even after that. But we got
> >> the blame; and deservedly. For what? For insufficient testing!!!
> >>
> > I'll see your -1 and raise you -2.
> >
> > You may not know of any specific bugs in the software when you release
> > it, but you *should* know that there are bugs in it somewhere. Almost
> > certainly, any software more complicated than a "hello world" routine
> > contains at least one bug. Programmer's axiom: Working code is not
> > bug-free code.
>
> Not to mention Godel's proof (or Gödel's, if you prefer).
>
> Also, given the infrastructure behind Hello World in let's say Java or
> Android programming, I wouldn't even bet on a bug-free Hello World
> program :-)

LOL too true!

--
Zaphod

Voted "Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe" for seven
years in a row.

[SC Tom[_3_]]

"Bob Henson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On 11/10/2012 4:29 PM, Chris S. wrote:
>>
>> "Bob Henson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/10/2012 3:39 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:30:33 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
>>>> wrote in article >...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/10/2012 2:57 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:09:05 +0100, "Bob Henson" >
>>>>>> wrote in article >...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Broken before it starts! Not yet on the market and the first major
>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>> is ready.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/windows_8_rtm_update/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not a Service Pack. It is just a handful of updates - and as
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> recall, there were a hand full of updates for Windows 7 shortly after
>>>>>> release, as with Windows Vista and XP as well, so this just means
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> are getting a bit better at delivering updates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As to "broken before it starts", name a single modern OS that doesn't
>>>>>> release patches and fixes on a regular schedule, often shortly after
>>>>>> the OS is released.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But not often *before* it is released.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And I repeat:
>>>>
>>>>>> this just means they are getting a bit better at delivering
>>>>>> updates.
>>>>
>>>> Or do you think they should wait longer before releasing the updates
>>>> for some reason? It is foolish to think that all of the bugs that the
>>>> updates released shortly after Win 7 etc. were released to fix were
>>>> discovered and fixed after the OS was released. So, as with previous
>>>> OS releases, folks on the consumer preview and early adopters of the
>>>> RTM reported bugs and MS fixed and tested some of them and released
>>>> them - in this case, more quickly than before. What in the world is
>>>> wrong with that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing - but all the beta testing and changes should be done before the
>>> release is announced and initiated. Otherwise they are taking money for
>>> a product known to be faulty. Naturally other things will need patching
>>> from time to time as the hackers get smarter and get to grips with the
>>> newly released software, but on release day the product should be
>>> complete as far as Microsoft know.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bob
>>> Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK
>>>
>> ALL software products are "known to be faulty" when they are released.
>> Is this your first computer?
>
> Perfection is hard to achieve, but many programs come close, and you
> certainly don't have to apply a service pack on Day 1. I wrote a
> pharmacy dispensing program (using DOS, and then QuickBasic) in the
> early days of computing (before you were born, maybe - 1985?) of which I
> sold a few copies, and no bugs were ever reported back to me. I, and
> others, tested it for months - it wasn't by accident that it worked
> straight out of the box.

Not to belittle your accomplishment, but do you really think a few hundred
lines of code are as hard to troubleshoot as a few million (or however many
lines there are)? A lot easier to test and troubleshoot your lines of
interactive code than that of an operating system, I would be willing to
bet. I used to write CAM programs for different makes and models of
machining centers, and I know what a PITA it was to troubleshoot the output
of the post-processor we had, and edit the programs to create the proper
output commands that a machine could use without running amok. I can't even
imagine trying to find faults in something as complex as an OS. Granted,
there are probably thousands (hundreds?) of people whose job it is to test
that stuff, but still, the interaction of each person's block with the
others must seem daunting.
--
SC Tom


> Just for one other example - there are hundreds
> - I'll pick a Microsoft one. My copy of Outlook 2007 has never fallen
> over since I installed it (it has had the odd background patch, of
> course). Neither did the last one - 2003.
>
> Standards have fallen, yes, but not as far as you think - there is still
> some good stuff out there. Windows 8 isn't one of them. Don't worry,
> Windows 9 won't be far behind. Windows 7 support will be extended long
> enough for me not to care either way. But you'll have to forgive me for
> laughing at Windows 8 - because that's what it is - a joke.
>
> --
> Bob
> Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK
>
>
> A preposition must never be used to end a sentence with.
> And never start a sentence with a conjunction.