Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Operating Systems Software Technology

Are Windows 7 Testers Going Unheard? 394

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the just-make-it-faster-and-easier-please dept.
nandemoari writes "Windows 7 beta testers are disputing whether or not Microsoft is taking notice of their feedback. The dispute follows a blog post by Steven Sinofsky, the man in charge of engineering Windows 7. He notes that in one week in January Microsoft received data through Windows 7's automatic feedback system every 15 seconds. According to Sinofsky, it's impossible to keep everyone happy. That's partly because there are only so many changes Microsoft can make to the system and still finish it, and partly because in many cases testers often have opposing views about a feature."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are Windows 7 Testers Going Unheard?

Comments Filter:
  • hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by myVarNamesAreTooLon (1474005) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @01:42PM (#27000467)
    I think that's his way of saying "We can't make all the users happy so we're going to do our best to make sure none are happy."
    • Re:hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26, 2009 @02:28PM (#27001207)

      I think that's just your way of saying "I'm a PC, and I run Linux! So, no, you can't do anything fun with me."

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AKAImBatman (238306) *

      Here's my take: Microsoft took 6 years to release Vista. While I realize they're hemorrhaging market share (how sad), they should consider taking a bit of time to meet as many user needs as possible. The end result will be a product that people actually want to use rather than Vista with a little less suck.

      Of course, that would require a re-engineering of the development philosophy [joelonsoftware.com]. Longhorn/Vista was a perfect example of how "too many cooks spoil the broth". Microsoft needs to get back to being customer-fo

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Idaho (12907)

        The end result will be a product that people actually want to use rather than Vista with a little less suck.

        What, they removed the layers upon layers of DRM-related cruft then?

      • by Dystopian Rebel (714995) * on Thursday February 26, 2009 @03:33PM (#27002251) Journal

        Vista really doesn't suck. I say this as an OS X, Linux, and M-Windows user.

        But if Microsoft wants to increase marketshare among the people using unlicensed installations of the OS [osnews.com], it's the Vista-style *licensing* of Win7 that must change.

        The licensing model of Vista (and Win7) is like dongle, only worse: it's a dongle with an expiry date. It penalizes the customer. If I buy an authentication key, *I* should be the one to say on which computer I install it. I shouldn't have to call Redmond for permission if I change computers.

        • by jebrew (1101907) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @03:46PM (#27002451)
          As a long time Windows user, this is the reason I've got xubuntu on my laptop. I'm still having trouble navigating everything, and I don't understand a lot of it, but my experience with XP's activation and the issues I've had with trying the 7 beta have thoroughly convinced me that Microsoft is attempting to commit some bizarre music industry like suicide by choking off legitimate customers.

          Pirates will ALWAYS break your security, please stop punishing paying customers for it.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by drsmithy (35869)

          The licensing model of Vista (and Win7) is like dongle, only worse: it's a dongle with an expiry date. It penalizes the customer. If I buy an authentication key, *I* should be the one to say on which computer I install it. I shouldn't have to call Redmond for permission if I change computers.

          1. It's no different to XP, which everyone seems to now hold up as some sort of gold standard.
          2. It's still streets ahead of OS X, and OS X's licensing doesn't seem to have slowed it down too much.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            1. It's no different to XP, which everyone seems to now hold up as some sort of gold standard.

            2. It's still streets ahead of OS X, and OS X's licensing doesn't seem to have slowed it down too much.

            1. You are wrong. I installed my legitimate copy of W2K on a computer for a project recently. (Almost 10 years after the purchase of W2K -- no limit on the number of installations, nor on the hardware.) I did the same with my legitimate copy of WXP recently. With Vista and Win7, Microsoft is tying the activation code to the hardware and telling me that I have to ask permission to change hardware. Is the difference clearer now?

            2. I don't see your point. I can install Tiger or Leopard on any of my Macs at any

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            2. It's still streets ahead of OS X, and OS X's licensing doesn't seem to have slowed it down too much.

            Whether or not Windows 7 is streets ahead of OS X is debatable but I'm more interested in the second half of that point. OS X, at least the client version which is what I assume we're talking about, has no licensing scheme to speak of. You can install OS X on as many machines as you want from one disc and never have to make a phone call for an activation code or connect to Apple's servers for permission.

      • While I realize they're hemorrhaging market share (how sad)

        "Hemorrhaging" is GM sales.

        It is not Microsoft which has lost 2% of the desktop market - 23% of which now Vista. Operating system market share [hitslink.com]

        An interesting footnote here:

        In the Net Applications webstats, Linux at 0.8% has only eight times the share of the Win 7 Beta

        - and something less than twice the share of the iPhone.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by curmudgeous (710771)

      They should change their slogan to:

      "Microsoft, an equal opportunity annoyer"

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by ThePercMan (1487983)
      I think that's his way of saying "We're not happy 'til you're not happy"
  • Unheard? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nairnr (314138) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @01:42PM (#27000473)
    I suspect there is a big difference between unheard and ignored!
  • by DanWS6 (1248650) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @01:43PM (#27000497)
    Users: No drm!
    RIAA/MPAA: drm!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ShieldW0lf (601553)

      The thing you're missing is that they're not selling software. They're selling software as a service. They're trying to be more like Google.

      Google has a massive farm of computers that they leverage. Microsoft wants one too.

      The difference is, Google was stupid... they went out and bought the hardware. Microsoft is smarter. They're just going to seize control of yours. In the business world, they call that "externalizing costs".

      • by jeffmeden (135043)

        So the million+ servers in several huge datacenters that Microsoft is busy implementing to provide their SaaS platform is for what again? MS already has "control" over the computers that it's OS runs on, but it doesn't get them very far. Your computer sucks, quite frankly. They want to in-source everything useful so that they can protect it from pirates, viruses, and shoddy hardware. Oh, and so they can charge a toll each time you come and go, but that part they are hoping you won't notice as it will pa

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by s_p_oneil (795792)
        You're right, Google was really stupid. They stupidly avoided locking horns with MS when they were getting started, and they stupidly laughed all the way to the bank with their insanely profitable business model. And if cheap Linux/BSD powered netbook/palm PC's start gaining market share, people still won't leave Google. And if MS pisses off customers enough to make them ditch MS, people still won't leave Google. Stupid Google with their stupid brilliant business plan. MS has done plenty of clever (and in s
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ricebowl (999467)

      Users: No drm!
      RIAA/MPAA: drm!

      I'm not sure why you've been modded Troll, unless maybe you were felt to have lacked a point, but I only wish that most users were sufficiently interested and educated as to be aware of the DRM. Or the impact that it has on their machines, or its usability.

      • by rabbit994 (686936)

        Or the fact that besides that complete bullshit slashdot article that was posted makes everything think there is some massive DRM in Windows 7.

        My previous comment sums up that slashdot article quite nicely: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1130241&cid=26882509 [slashdot.org]

        or Ars Tech article: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/oh-the-humanity-windows-7s-draconian-drm.ars [arstechnica.com]

        TL;DR version: Windows 7 has DRM but same DRM from Vista and almost all users will not be bothered by it. You can crack Photoshop and

      • by DAldredge (2353)
        What impact does the DRM have in my day to day operations of my computer? Examples that I can test would be nice.
        • by ricebowl (999467)

          It's been a while since I've last used Windows (I'm a health professional, not an IT specialist so...), but I was under the impression that parts of Vista's abysmal file-copy/network-copy was due to the DRM embedded in the OS? Also there's the aspects of HDCP, and CSS that preclude easily cutting/copying/pasting/recording of AV on Windows (when last I checked, but this has the caveat that it's been a while...though maybe only eighteen months, give or take).

          I'd hazard that, flame-war aside, others might have

      • by Omestes (471991)

        What DRM? Is Win7 going to phone home for every MP3 I have on my computer, or force me to scan the CDs UPC before each play? Is it going to call the feds if I use a BT protocol, or try to install Soulseek? Its going to explode when I view a AVI?

        Yes, I'm sure it'll be like Vista, where DRM enforcement is enabled for downloaded content that requires it (protected WMA, etc), it will probably have HDCP for Blue Ray. It will probably have the MS house DRM (genuine whatnot) to ensure you paid for your OS/Word

    • What DRM does Windows 7 have in addition to Windows Vista? And what does the DRM in Windows stop you from doing that you would like to do?
  • no shit? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phaetonic (621542) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @01:45PM (#27000507)
    "Kernel 2.8.1 beta testers are disputing whether or not the linux community is taking notice of their feedback. The dispute follows a blog post by Linus Torvalds, the man in charge of engineering Kernel 2.8.1. He notes that in one week in January the linux community received data through Kernel 2.8.1's automatic feedback system every 15 seconds. According to Linus, it's impossible to keep everyone happy. That's partly because there are only so many changes the linux community can make to the system and still finish it, and partly because in many cases testers often have opposing views about a feature."
    • Re:no shit? (Score:5, Informative)

      by DrLang21 (900992) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @01:49PM (#27000619)
      This is just standard practice for any chain of command. When I solicit feedback on documents I write at work, I often get conflicting opinions coming back. It's then my job to decide which opinions to accept in the final work. It is not my job to make everyone happy. That does not mean that I don't listen to the feedback I solicit.
      • How can Microsoft possibly listen to that volume of feedback? By making the beta too open they overload themselves with more feedback than they can possibly handle.

        Their mistake isn't in trying to make everyone happy. It's in asking absolutely everyone to give them feedback.

      • by jbeaupre (752124)

        Conflicting advice is a good thing.

        I had a boss that would tell me one thing on day 1, forget and tell me the opposite on day 2 (sometimes hour 2 or sentence 2), forget again by day 3. I took that to mean I could flip a coin or decide which I thought was better.

    • Re:no shit? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26, 2009 @01:56PM (#27000735)

      Yeah I'm not really sure what the problem here is. I imagine that there are more beta testers then coders, MS has to evaluate the flood of info coming in, prioritize everything, and get back to it. MS's job isn't to respond to every single Beta Tester with a personalized "ok we fixed your problem now", their job is to get the project done.

      Frankly EVERY SINGLE product I've seen that has a public beta has these EXACT SAME complaints from the public.

      Most of the comments here just sounds like a bunch of whining to me.

    • by gbjbaanb (229885)

      there are only so many changes the linux community can make to the system and still finish it,

      Finish it? Linux is a permanently moving target, releases are made when the kernel and distro compilers want to (or they've agreed to). Its not like Microsoft where they have to get it out before a certain date or the share price collapses.

      and partly because in many cases testers often have opposing views about a feature."

      yup, but you can guarantee the Linux community listens, argues, debates, argues some more and relatively quickly everyone is in agreement - including those who have forked the codebase and made the changes that they wanted all along!

  • There IS good news (Score:4, Informative)

    by CrimsonKnight13 (1388125) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @01:46PM (#27000519) Homepage
  • How about the litany of major usability issues that Windows has had for years that MS wants to constantly ignore? Especially given that Gates has sent memos out criticizing the Windows team, and they still don't address these issues.

    Usability took a big step backwards with Vista, and most of those issues haven't been addressed in 7.

    I'm not sure they were will. Is 7 better than Vista? Yes. Is 7 better for enterprise users when paired with Server 2008? Certainly. Is 7 better than XP for Home users? Not

    • by vux984 (928602)

      Is 7 better than XP for Home users?

      Yes. The security improvements in Vista are real.

      • If they can manage to use it. I can't tell you how often my coworkers have been telling me they just can't figure out their home computer because of Vista. I've converted more people to Linux that way.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by vux984 (928602)

          If they can manage to use it. I can't tell you how often my coworkers have been telling me they just can't figure out their home computer because of Vista. I've converted more people to Linux that way.

          They couldn't figure out Vista, but made the switch to linux without a hitch. Not likely.

          Assuming what you said is true then I have to conclude they have a linux advocate (probably you) assisting them over the bumps, pointing them where they need to go, giving them the basics, etc. I'm sure if someone spent th

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by rts008 (812749)

            Well, I'm going to have to back Enderandrew here.

            I have converted 3 people to *nix since October. All three came from the 'used Xp just fine, but what is this?' crowd, right after getting a new PC with Vista pre-installed. All three have commented on how easy their computers are to use now, and wished they had heard of this *nix thing years ago.

            Only one has needed support since then. He had downloaded an avi file that he successfully played once, but then it would not play again. Replaced the file with a fr

            • by vux984 (928602) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @05:39PM (#27004179)

              I have converted 3 people to *nix since October. All three came from the 'used Xp just fine, but what is this?' crowd, right after getting a new PC with Vista pre-installed. All three have commented on how easy their computers are to use now, and wished they had heard of this *nix thing years ago.

              What exactly did these people find so hard about Vista? Seriously?

              I mean if they could 'easily' handle switching Office programs, switching email programs, switching browsers, switching to any of linuxes file explorers, switching to Gnome or KDE windowing conventions, using amarok instead of itunes or windows media player, learning the new terminology, figuring out Kopete or Pidgin instead of MSN, got their wifi going, set up their own printers, figured out how to get their all in one scanner to ocr something, shared some files over the network with Samba...

              but what... you expect me to beleive they were hopelessly befuddled by Vista's "Network and Sharing Center" or that that "Add/Remove Programs" is now "Programs and Features"... or that when they install something they have to click 'Allow'.

              Give me a break.

              The only rational explanation I can think of is one of expectations. They expected Vista to be identical so the slightest change is reported as 'confusing and hard' and they expected Linux to be incomprehensibly different so the slightest familiarity is 'surprisingly easy and welcome'.

              But in 'absolute' terms anyone willing to take the effort to poke around in a Linux distro to figure things out will cope just fine in Vista with the same mindset.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by berend botje (1401731)
      Listen. I'm going to let y'all in on a secret. Well, maybe not so much a secret as something you might not want to admit in polite company.

      There are alternatives to Windows. Several, in fact. The quality of these alternatives ranges from high quality to very, very high quality.

      For the "I'm a user and don't want to learn how a computer works", there is OS X. A fine OS if I ever saw one. Also, there is a GNU/Linux distribution called Ubuntu, which works wonderfully out-of-the-box on most modern hardware
      • by moderatorrater (1095745) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @02:24PM (#27001153)

        There is no reason to be stuck in Windows bondage land. You don't need it. Really, you don't.

        Really? Because my multitude of games and windows-specific programs beg to differ. Of course, I don't strictly need those programs, but by that same standard I don't strictly need a computer at all.

        I'm going to let you in on a secret, and it's not something you mention in company of Slashdot users and OSX nuts: people use what they like and are familiar with, and windows is good enough to get the job done. Vista is still miles ahead of Ubuntu in typical, every day usability, and this is coming from someone who likes to fire up the command line and edit iptables by hand. The gui in Ubuntu is still brittle and requires a lot of command line usage to use it like I want to use it. Windows, on the other hand, works a ton better without ever touching the command line. For a good server, I'll use Ubuntu. For a workable computer to play games on and browse the internet, I'll use windows.

        This choice is reasonable, logical, and entirely dependent on opinion. If someone tells me I'm wrong, all they're doing is showing that they're being irrational. I like windows, and it's not because I'm masochistic, it's because it's just plain more usable for what I do.

        • I'm an avid gamer myself. Yes, games are developed mostly for Windows.

          I have the good fortune to really like the Half-Life (and spin-offs, like Team Fortress) series of games. Those run quite well under Wine. The framerate isn't as high as on Windows but it works. It works well enough that I can play a very enjoyable game.

          Sure, I would like to play every new game that comes out! Absolutely! But I have to choose between Windows and playing all games. For me, that decision has been made. It isn't Window
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            But I have to choose between Windows and playing all games.

            I don't.

            All I really have to do is be careful which MMOs and casual games I pick up. If I'm playing a game in a window, I'd like my IM working, and I wouldn't mind email, too -- and those are two things I don't do on Windows.

            But, if I'm playing something like Natural Selection or a Half Life episode, I'm not likely to want any distractions outside of the game itself.

            And by the way: Yes, they work on Linux, at a lower framerate and considerably more hassle than occasionally booting Windows. It's not just abo

      • by MadnessASAP (1052274) <madnessasap@gmail.com> on Thursday February 26, 2009 @02:27PM (#27001203)

        And if you're an enterprise user with 1000's of computers and 1000's of users all needign to share data and collaborate? Well then there's Active Directory. God knows I'm not a Microsoft apologeist but I haven't seen anything that even comes close to the power and ease of use there is in Windows Server and Active Directory.

        • by berend botje (1401731) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @02:59PM (#27001717)
          Unix was sharing data and enabling users to collaborate when Redmond still thought DOS was hot and sexy.

          The fact that you are brought up in a Windows environment doesn't mean there aren't other ways to accomplish things. Really.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Culture20 (968837)

          And if you're an enterprise user with 1000's of computers and 1000's of users all needign to share data and collaborate? Well then there's Active Directory.

          For mass-system linux auto-configurations, there's cfengine; I haven't looked at it in years, so it might be a little dated. There's also openldap, kerberos, NFSv4(with weak crypto and authentication, finally), Samba, SSH... yadda yadda yadda Granted, "ease of use" for the sysadmin isn't equal, but power is equal or greater.

    • by drsmithy (35869) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (yhtimsrd)> on Thursday February 26, 2009 @06:38PM (#27004987)

      How about the litany of major usability issues that Windows has had for years that MS wants to constantly ignore? Especially given that Gates has sent memos out criticizing the Windows team, and they still don't address these issues.

      Usability took a big step backwards with Vista, and most of those issues haven't been addressed in 7.

      For example ?

  • According to Sinofsky, it's impossible to keep everyone happy. That's partly because there are only so many changes Microsoft can make to the system and still finish it, and partly because in many cases testers often have opposing views about a feature."

    That is the first smart thing I've heard anybody from Microsoft say in a long, long time.

    • However, without a public accessible bug-tracker, you can't be sure they aren't honest and are just ignoring everyone.
  • <joke>I thought sheep always lived in herds?</joke>
  • by A Friendly Troll (1017492) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @02:00PM (#27000799)

    FTFA:

    To date, we have fixes in the pipeline for nearly 2,000 bugs in Windows code (not in third party drivers or applications) that caused crashes or hangs.

    Yet the trolling headline screams "ZOMG, M$ doesn't listen to users!!!"...

    But wait, there's more!

    To date, we have recorded over 10,000,000 device installations and over 75% of these were able to use drivers provided in box (that is no download necessary). The remaining devices were almost all served by downloading drivers from Windows Update and by direct links to the manufacturer's web site. We've recorded the usage of over 2.8M unique plug-and-play device identifiers.

    2.8 million pieces of different hardware, and over 7.5 million installations had all drivers included, "almost all" could be downoaded easily. No matter what you think of Microsoft, that information is pretty much astonishing.

    • by neokushan (932374)

      I would absolutely love to see a good, solid comparison of the number of devices each of the Major OSs out there purported to supporting both out of the box and after an automatic system update.

      I'm sure Windows 7 would be near the top of the list, but I'd be very interested in knowing just how much hardware something like Ubuntu supports. Linux, by it's very nature, runs on almost anything - but does almost anything run on Linux?

      And, of course, I'd expect MacOSX to be somewhere near the bottom, but still ni

      • by Stickney (715486) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @02:34PM (#27001315) Homepage

        I only wish Linux had numbers like this. For all the hours I've spent building ndiswrapper or ATI display drivers on any number of boxes... I don't even have that much weird hardware, but Linux printing support is way behind, 3D display is way behind, sound support is sometimes flawless and sometimes nonexistent.

        Not that I'm about to use Windows, but it would be nice.

        • I don't think any sane person can believe that Linux supports the same range of hardware that Windows does, especially in the graphics department. You can blame that on device manufacturers that only ship with Windows drivers, leaving the FOSS community to write the Linux ones, if you want.

          And yet somehow Stickney gets modded as Flamebait for a truthful assertion about his experiences, one I've had myself (and now I'm smart enough to insist on Nvidia graphics for any machine that runs Linux).

          As an experimen

        • by PitaBred (632671) <slashdot@NoSPaM.pitabred.dyndns.org> on Thursday February 26, 2009 @03:46PM (#27002437) Homepage
          It's "way behind" in some aspects, but also way ahead in others. Ever had a device that didn't work in Windows? I have a scanner that just won't work with anything past XP. No drivers, never will be. Hardware is still awesome (2400x1200dpi flatbed, USB), but it just doesn't work with any recent Windows. It has worked with every single distro of Linux I've thrown at it, though.

          And display drivers are getting better, especially lately. I can build Ubuntu packages with the latest ATI installer if I want the latest and greatest, or just use the restricted driver manager if I want the distro version.

          Not to mention my Linux just keeps everything updated. I don't have 15 auto-updaters running all the time, I don't have each program checking for itself. Windows is way behind in update capabilities.

          Linux is only behind if you define "ahead" as "what windows does". Guess what... Linux is not Windows. If you compare them, Windows will be better at what Windows does, and Linux will be better at what Linux does. The question is what do you want your computer to do? Locked in, proprietary software that you don't get much support for that if it doesn't work, you're just SOL, or open source software that's not as pretty, but can do a lot more if you spend some time working on it, and is completely free, doesn't get viruses, etc.? It's your choice. But don't think that "Linux" is a free Windows, or you can compare them directly in all aspects.
    • by Tom (822)

      2.8 million pieces of different hardware, and over 7.5 million installations had all drivers included, "almost all" could be downoaded easily. No matter what you think of Microsoft, that information is pretty much astonishing.

      Not really, no. Ten or even five years ago, I would have been impressed a lot more. Since then, hardware has come a long way. Just count the number of different connectors on a new PC and compare it to an older one. Almost all new hardware is connected via a very short list of connectors (USB, PCI, nothing for a long time, AGP, firewire, analog line in/out, etc.)
      At the same time, the variety in the market has gone down. How many video card manufacturers do you know? Seven, eight years ago, most geeks could

      • Considering how one of the major complaints about Beasta was the lack of drivers, this *is* astonishing when it comes to Windows. It doesn't take anything away from driver support in Linux.

    • by Culture20 (968837) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @03:42PM (#27002383)

      75% of these were able to use drivers provided in box (that is no download necessary). The remaining devices were almost all served by downloading drivers from Windows Update and by direct links to the manufacturer's web site.

      How many machines could not get their NIC to work out of the box? How much did this skew the data because the owners never bothered to sneakernet the drivers? If these hypothetical NICs didn't work, how much else on the systems didn't work and was not recorded in the data?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        How many machines could not get their NIC to work out of the box? How much did this skew the data because the owners never bothered to sneakernet the drivers? If these hypothetical NICs didn't work, how much else on the systems didn't work and was not recorded in the data?

        Not many. Networking is a priority inside Windows (unlike sound, for example), and people who installed the beta were surely smart and eager enough to get drivers for those cases where the built-in ones failed, if they failed at all.

        That said, networkless installs wouldn't even count towards the data presented in the article. So yeah, theoretically there might have been 20 million installs, not 10, and the extra ones didn't have a network connection, but that's in the realm of improbable.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rantingkitten (938138)
      Yeah, sure, drivers. I heard that with XP. I heard that with Vista. Every single cherry install of XP or Vista I've ever done, without exception, has failed to load ethernet, wireless, video, or soundcard drivers. Every. Single. One.

      That's especially great when you check under Device Manager and see five or six "unknown devices" and Windows helpfully offers to search online for the drivers. Thanks, jackasses.

      Meanwhile, I have to use a second computer to not only find out what hardware this th
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rtechie (244489) *

        Yeah, sure, drivers. I heard that with XP. I heard that with Vista. Every single cherry install of XP or Vista I've ever done, without exception, has failed to load ethernet, wireless, video, or soundcard drivers. Every. Single. One.

        Virtually everything can use the fallback LAN driver in Windows. Only certain weird emulated-in-firmware NICs cause problems with the fallback driver. I'd point out they don't work in Linux AT ALL. Lots of places use PXE to install Windows so this driver HAS to work.

        The remaining devices were almost all served by downloading drivers from Windows Update

        Has anyone, in the history of humanity, ever gotten that to work?

        Are you serious? You've never seen an updated driver package on Windows Update?

        At this point, I'm calling bullshit. Let's hear about some of this hardware that didn't work. Be specific. "Some random sound card" doesn't mean shit. I want specific

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by rantingkitten (938138)
          Okay, well, I documented some of my adventures right here [mirrorshades.org]. There are no screenshots because I didn't think to take any, but these were HP nx7400 machines. So we're talking, let's see...

          00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/
          02:0e.0 Ethernet controller: Broadcom Corporation BCM4401-B0 100Base-TX (rev 02)
          10:00.0 Network controller: Intel Corporation PRO/Wireless 3945ABG Network Connection (rev 02)
          00:1b.0 Audio device: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) High Definiti
  • As someone who vigorously feedbacked Windows Vista and many of it's bugs and UI issues (some of which were addressed after release, some in Windows 7 and none at all), I can say that Microsoft doesn't listen to their beta testers. I was in an IRC channel discussing a wireless bug with some other beta testers, at least 9 of us feedbacked it, and were dismayed that the bug still existed in release, one year later.
  • Since even Bill Gates is unhappy with the product experience on Windows, and they ignore him, what makes you think they're going to listen to Win 7 Testers?

    He owns the company.

  • Stupid Article (Score:5, Informative)

    by neokushan (932374) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @02:22PM (#27001135)

    That's funny, I read this [msdn.com] blog post from Microsoft today that detailed some of the changes made since the beta, all thanks to feedback from said beta.

    It's quite a sizeable list and apparently only a small amount of the changes made so far. Considering nobody outside of Redmond (With the exception of a few select partners) is supposed to have access to anything other the beta, who's actually making the claim that the feedback is falling on deaf ears? Sounds to me like Microsoft IS actually listening for once.

  • In the early 1990's we started instrumenting Word and learning about how people actually used the software (this was before the internet so this was a special version of the product we solicited volunteers to run and then we would collect the data via lots of floppies).

    Appreciate all your effort in creating the internet.

    *clap* *clap* *clap*

    [John]

  • Huh? (Score:2, Funny)

    by braque (16684)

    They test Windows?

    *head explodes*

  • Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SpitfireSMS (1388089) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @05:44PM (#27004257)

    As a 7 beta tester who has posted multiple feedback, and actually had replies, I have to say they are at least trying.

    I believe they sort through them to find the people that might actually have a good idea of whats going on, and act upon those because they actaully have somewhere to start and head toward.

    If you want to be heard, leave a good analysis of whats going on and maybe some suggestions as well.
    They arent just going to hire people to go through these and analyze the 12 different bugs that 12,000 people are complaining about.

    To me at least, it appears they are trying.

I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen

Working...