Informal Survey: should MS focus for 12 months on stability and bug fixes?

Topic

New Reply

Here are a few reasons why we believe Microsoft should announce a 12-month period during which they will suspend new software developments and focus instead on maximizing stability and fixing known bugs.  After that 12-month period, new software developments will resume, as usual:

(1)  the complexity of Windows Operating Systems has become a major challenge for MS technical personnel who are responsible for identifying and fixing known bugs;

(2) the reality of inevitable turnover among Microsoft OS specialists necessitates assigning less experienced staff to solving problems caused by excess, and ever increasing, complexity;

(3)  the sheer size of the Windows installed base also aggravates this excess complexity;

(4)  newly identified bugs can appear to be “fixed” as a result of early rounds of updates, but any experienced systems programmer will tell you that many “fixes” can and do cause new problems to surface;

(5)  MS general policy for Windows users should allow any licensed User to “freeze” any given OS configuration so as to BLOCK future updates, particularly when certain updates are known to induce added instabilities;

(6)  the general computerization of the entire planet further aggravates the problems that are already resulting from excess complexity;  and,

(7)  MS should honor its Customers who have no real or practical need for using every single feature that is now available in the latest versions of Windows:  a better policy is needed to serve Customers who will be very happy with “lite” versions of that OS e.g. for doing email and browsing the Internet.

 

Comments, replies, objections, criticisms etc. are most welcome here.  Thanks!

 

Reply | Quote

Replies

Who’s we?

Informal answer: No.

1 user thanked author for this post.

bbearren

Reply | Quote

“We” seem to forget that “we” don’t own Windows, Microsoft owns Windows.  “We” only license the use of Windows.  The EULA states quite plainly that Microsoft can and will do whatever Microsoft deems best for Microsoft and for Windows.

Most everyone I know personally uses Windows in some way, shape or form, whether for work, gaming, video/image processing, what-have-you.  But I have to come online to AskWoody and other Windows help sites to hear complaints.

I’m running Windows 11 Pro.

And no.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

1 user thanked author for this post.

Alex5723

Reply | Quote

“MS should honor its Customers who have no real or practical need for using every single feature that is now available in the latest versions of Windows: a better policy is needed to serve Customers who will be very happy with “lite” versions of that OS e.g. for doing email and browsing the Internet.”

That’s why we have Home with it’s cut down “Oh we know better” version now.

Also see: Windows RT = failed
Also see Windows S = failed

Susan Bradley Patch Lady/Prudent patcher

2 users thanked author for this post.

SupremeLaW, bbearren

Reply | Quote

I have not ever “forgotten” that MS owns Windows and I have never even implied or hinted that users of its proprietary software have anything other than a “license”.

The original reason for this thread had nothing to do with some EULA.

Cf. “straw man” argumentation.

The original reason arose from what I regard as poor management of excess complexity, and such questionable corporate policies that would FORCE updates on unwilling customers, only to discover that entire departments go down when a FORCED update stops staff computers from RESTARTING.

A worthy experiment is to do a routine search of the Internet for the problems numerous licensees have reported with “Map Network Drive”:  that feature worked reliably and consistently in XP and Windows 7.

Again, if MS corporate “policy” was their desire to migrate an enormous installed base to some “cloud”, and do so by effectively botching the removal of HOMEGROUP — withOUT adequate Alpha Testing — that one decision had very widespread and very damaging repercussions.

But, the corporate fan boys of this world have convinced themselves that all such larger corporations should continue to enjoy total and unquestionable immunity from consequential damages their poor policies and poor practices cause.

Here now:  Google “data breaches”

But, don’t believe me:  do the research to witness how many small and medium-sized businesses went to work one day to discover that Network Drive letters just STOPPED WORKING!

How “cool” was that?

Is your answer:  MS can do WHATEVER IT WANTS with other peoples’ time and money?

Sounds perilously close to corporate fascism, to me anyway.

WinUpdateStop appears to do it right, when MS has not.

Occam’s Razor (again).

Reply | Quote

Supreme,

Not Occam’s razor, but Hanlon’s Razor .

Zig

1 user thanked author for this post.

SupremeLaW

Reply | Quote

Yes indeed:  crass stupidity is one thing, and it’s becoming more prevalent as our educational systems descend into chaos and political correctness.

I had a different problem in mind, however:

Even extremely intelligent people with very high IQs will probably fail when faced with an urgent need to expedite fault isolation with overly complex systems.

As such, the latter are not stupid, and their initial trials-and-LOTSA-errors are not their fault.

Here’s another personal testimony:  this actually did happen to me several years ago.

I was an active contributor to a popular on-line Forum.  One day, I simply posted this short question:

“Is ‘VISTA’ an acronym for Virtual Instant Surveillance Tactical Application”?

I was IMMEDIATELY BANNED FOR LIFE from ever posting again to that same Forum.

So, I re-registered with a pseudonym, and thereafter received 33 consecutive awards for BEST SOLUTION.

Instead of ignoring a sensitive question, the harsh response of those Forum Moderators spoke volumes to me.

 

Reply | Quote

p.s.  I should purchase 1 share of Microsoft stock,

so I can “officially” claim to be more than a mere licensee.

Reply | Quote

SupremeLaW wrote:

MS can do WHATEVER IT WANTS with other peoples’ time and money?

The harsh reality is they CAN and DO.
No enterprise, business.. has taken Microsoft to court demanding $BB in damages compensation.

Reply | Quote

There was USA et al. v. Microsoft, Inc. circa 2001, an anti-trust action brought by the Federal government and several State Attorneys General (about 7 in number, if my memory is correct).

It only took 2 short pleadings from an interpleader to motivate that “robe” to ORDER all parties to settle.  I had never seen a Federal Judge “order” parties to settle.

What made that “order” even more amazing was the sheer volume of litigation which had already occurred in that one civil case.  Gates’ attorney was charging MS about $750 per hour.

Soon after that, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly turned up withOUT any of the 4 credentials required of all Federal Judges:  that was confirmed by U.S. DOJ (the legal custodians).

Our intervention was an experiment re: jurisdiction:  Sherman Anti-Trust Act was enacted PRIOR TO the “Sea Change” attempted in 1948.

We took no position on the monopoly allegations by U.S. DOJ.

In retrospect, I tend to believe DOJ was correct about those allegations, but they were NOT correct about original jurisdiction e.g. “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” is not a Proper Party, Sherman Act did not confer jurisdiction on the USDCs, etc.

We also very honestly wanted XP to succeed e.g. merging proper memory management and plug-and-play technology, rather than disrupting that important R&D at a crucial moment in its evolution.

Bill Gates never said “thanks” or even offered a single penny for helping XP reach completion, and general release, withOUT breaking up Microsoft (the corporation) into several smaller business units:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/microsoft/transmittal.htm

I’m an eyewitness to all of the above, because I wrote the 2 pleadings that were followed very closely by that Court’s “order” to settle.

Reply | Quote

SupremeLaW wrote:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/microsoft/transmittal.htm

 

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

Sorry about that:  we started developing that library in 1996, with the help of a NASA astronomer and his spouse.

Maybe try copying and pasting into Firefox or any popular browser.

We keep the files in that library very clean of malware.

I’ve attached the .pdf version of that TRANSMITTAL letter.

Reply | Quote

But, I see that the .pdf version has fewer links:

I must have written the .pdf version BEFORE hyper-linking the .htm version.

Our library is designed with a natural layout:

“cc” is for “court cases”

“cc/microsoft” is for the Microsoft anti-trust court case

Reply | Quote

Those of us who were in the technology business in the 90s can attest that generally Microsoft was thought of as a vicious, cut-throat competitor who regularly abused its monopoly position. If the original order by Judge Jackson was upheld the tech world would most likely be in a much different position than it is today. You have to remember that in Microsoft at the time Windows was king. Anything that may have conceivably threatened Windows or competed with the internal direction of Windows was going to be squashed in some way. The “Windows” company could have been free to innovate and compete in the OS world. The “Apps” company would have been free from the dominance of Windows and forced to innovate and compete in a much different environment.

Google was formed in 1998 the same year the lawsuit started. Amazon started growing like a weed. Facebook exploded. Microsoft was both threatened and distracted by the lawsuits. The consent decree in the US and the settlement in the EU hamstrung Microsoft for a decade. Microsoft had to tread very carefully for a decade. Even though Microsoft still has a monopoly position in PCs, the world changed. Cell phones became the dominant platform for personal computing worldwide.

If Microsoft had been allowed to operate from 1998 – 2011 the same way as the preceding decade, it would have done everything in its power to crush the upstarts and may very well have succeeded.

 

--Joe

1 user thanked author for this post.

SupremeLaW

Reply | Quote

Since you also mentioned Google Inc., please permit me to summarize one of my incidents with them beginning Spring quarter 2008.

At that time, Google published an apparently bona fide Offer of $10 Million USD for the 5 best new business ideas.

They called it something like “Project 10^100”.

I submitted a sincere proposal that Google announce a policy of pursuing Gigabit Internet access worldwide, not merely for LANs where 1GbE was already deployed, but also in the “last mile” i.e. from telephone poles to cable modems in-house.

Such gigabit Internet access was NOT generally available back in 2008, certainly not for the vast residential User market.

During a period lasting only a few weeks after they received my Proposal, Google announced “Google Fibre” and their advertising plagiarized my own exact words, as stated in my sincere Proposal, in their initial marketing announcements.

When confronted by several other people about their true intentions, Google executives replied that they never intended to award “individuals” but only “organizations”.  But, no such restriction had ever been mentioned anywhere in their original “$10M Offer”.

They effectively stiffed me for one-fifth of $10M i.e. $2,000,000, which has now enlarged significantly with accrued interest and triple damages authorized by Oregon’s strong elder abuse law.

I filed a formal complaint with the Washington State Attorney General’s office in Seattle, Washington State.

When Google missed their deadline to respond, some flunky in their PR department tried to tell that AG something to the effect that “Google has been thinking about starting an ISP division.”

Please understand that I am not trying to “blow my own horn” here:  that whole incident has been thoroughly documented, and the Washington State AG’s office in Seattle should have a complete paper file with my complaint and lots of follow-up evidence.

$2M x 3 = $6M + interest (still accruing)

 

p.s. And, you know what?  I really could NEVER spend such a large amount on myself:  I have friends who need money a lot more than I do.  And, there are all these very worthy outfits, like AskWoody, who can do a lot more good with gifts of large chunks of that $6M.  A tax-exempt charitable trust can award grants for scientific research.

Reply | Quote

Re:  “Those of us who were in the technology business in the 90s can attest that generally Microsoft was thought of as a vicious, cut-throat competitor who regularly abused its monopoly position.”

Many thanks for your very insightful and accurate observations.

Should your latter statement be interpreted to imply that you do believe Microsoft, Inc. did violate the Sherman Antitrust Act, as alleged?

As we explained in our TRANSMITTAL to Gates, back then we did not take sides concerning DOJ’s monopoly accusations.

Our reasons for intervening were two-fold, designed as a preliminary experiment to assist my large copyright infringement lawsuit which we were in the process of preparing at that same time:

(1)  allow XP to finish R&D and reach general release with proper memory management and plug-and-play technologies;  and,

(2)  prove, in that case, Microsoft, Inc. (the corporation) was being damaged criminally by impostors lacking authority, jurisdiction and powers of attorney, at a minimum.

Ironically, DOJ eventually did admit that the new “robe” who succeeded Jackson was unable to produce ANY of the four (4) credentials that are required of all Federal judges.

DOJ is the legal custodian of all PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS for all Federal judges, so DOJ was not only in a position to know if that credential existed;  DOJ has a legal obligation to maintain legal custody of that credential after the Attorney General co-signs it.

DOJ’s Disclosure Officers have told me they do maintain an “appointment file” on all Federal Judges, no exceptions; and, that’s where copies and/or originals of these 4 credentials are archived.

Accordingly, there are several well documented reasons why Gates would have been entirely justified to refuse any “ORDER to settle” until such time as a new Judge could be assigned who did have all 4 credentials in proper order.

Thomas Hogan did produce all 4 required credentials at that time.

On the merits, impersonating an officer of the Federal government is a FELONY violation of 18 U.S.C. 912.  If Gates’s attorney(s) did NOT make that clear to Gates, my studied opinion is that those defense attorneys gave him bad legal advice (read malpractice).

See In re Telfair for a good summary of an attorney’s ethical obligations to clients.

The significance of our successful experiment later enlarged, after the attempted “Sea Change” was exposed by a holding in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Willy v. Coastal Corp.

To summarize briefly, the holding in the latter case was that Rules of Court may not expand or restrict original jurisdiction after it has been conferred upon Federal district courts by prior Acts of Congress.

But, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS ATTEMPTED BY “AMENDMENTS” TO FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE, CIVIL PROCEDURE AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SOON AFTER THE ACTS OF JUNE 25, 1948 WERE SIGNED BY PRESIDENT TRUMAN.

Here, see the Rules Enabling Act at 28 U.S.c. 2072(b):

“All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.”

We even found a Congressman who complained that the latter “Abrogation Clause” was clearly UNconstitutional (violates Separation of Powers:  Courts cannot legislate / only Congress can make Federal laws).

This “Sea Change” hypothesis is so extremely sensitive, with such far-reaching legal, political and economic repercussions, it has the potential to invalidate every single Federal Grand Jury INDICTMENT dating all the way back to 1949, when the SCOTUS issued the Rule “amendments” in question (read SMOKING GUNS).

1 user thanked author for this post.

wavy

Reply | Quote