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..._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)