Are Windows 7 Testers Going Unheard? 394
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."
There IS good news (Score:4, Informative)
Re:no shit? (Score:5, Informative)
FTFA: 2000 bugs fixed (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Stupid Article (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Major usability issues (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Opposing views... (Score:2, Informative)
There is always a balance to be struck (Score:2, Informative)
between opposing opinions of the desirability or design of a feature. And there is risk of introducing new bugs by adding features or getting insufficient testing by introducing new features or code changes late in the product time line.
Any product manager has had to wrestle with the desire to satisfy with features, the desire for stability and the production target date. It isn't easy...partially because users have little appreciation of the chaos their requests introduce into the production process...nor should they care...it is the PM's job to filter the inputs and come up with workable a plan within resources and time lines...and the users job to judge the finished product.
And why there are cut off dates for feature changes that are different and earlier than for bug fixes. Feature changes generate too much risk if introduced late in the cycle.
As one who had the fate of his company's yearly reporting resting on a delivery date being met, I can tell you it isn't an easy call you make when you say "ship it" and you don't always get it right. Get it wrong and you are looking for a new job in another industry.
Re:publicity stunt (Score:3, Informative)
According to the CMMI process http://www.sei.cmu.edu/pub/documents/06.reports/pdf/06tr008.pdf [cmu.edu] (p.63):
The Process and Product Quality Assurance process area supports all process areas by providing specific practices for objectively evaluating performed processes, work products, and services against the applicable process descriptions, standards, and procedures, and ensuring that any issues arising from these reviews are addressed.
While "evaluating work products" certainly SOUNDS like this means QA is software testing, it is far from it. It means something completely different when you complete the sentence..."evaluating work products against the applicable process descriptions". Thus, it is QAs job to ensure the software test engineers are doing the job the way the process states they should be, not conducting any sort of software tests themselves.
So no, somebody in QA doesn't say, "hey, this button doesn't work". Instead, they say, "hey, Bob the software tester didn't follow process 4a" and because of that, nobody caught the fact that button didn't work. Then QA tells you your processes suck and makes you write new ones (even thought that's their job).
And yes, I realize my expertise in CMMI fully qualifies me to be a great Dilbert character.
Re:hmmm... (Score:2, Informative)
What, exactly, is beating Windows? Macs? No. Linux? Hell No. XP? That's still MS market share!
MS doesn't care about the Vista "fiasco." It doesn't matter.
Re:Opposing views... (Score:1, Informative)
Vista Media Center refuses to record certain TV shows:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9943631-7.html [cnet.com]
Loose all your music when you upgrade or reinstall
http://forums.legitreviews.com/about14833.html [legitreviews.com]
Get falsely accused by Microsoft of piracy - "Windows Genuine Advantage falsely accuses millions"
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/01/8690.ars [arstechnica.com]
Now it can lead to "Reduced functionality mode"
"Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to provide content protection for so-called "premium content", typically HD data from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical support overhead, and hardware and software cost. These issues affect not only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server)"
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html [auckland.ac.nz]
Jon
Re:Vista is good. But there's a bigger problem. (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 time. I have often moved between Panther and Tiger for development projects.
Re:Vista is good. But there's a bigger problem. (Score:3, Informative)
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. I guess Apple is effectively selling a licence of OS X with every box sold you could argue their licensing is a giant dongle which doubles as a computer.
At any rate I think the reason OS X's licensing doesn't seem to have hampered it is because it barely has any when compared to the alternative from Microsoft.
Re:Reality check (Score:5, Informative)
and if you actually believe those statistics...
I remember at one point working at a large manufacturer and noting that our internal records showed more non-VM Linux machines in use than what supposedly existed for the entire globe.
Yeah. You run off and believe those numbers. Go for it.
Re:Vista is good. But there's a bigger problem. (Score:2, Informative)
I don't see what the problem with it is....?
In the last 10 years of upgrading, downgrading, swapping in and swapping out; I've only ever had Windows complain once. And it was, literally, the easiest phone call I've ever had to get it fixed. I was on the phone for less than 3 minutes which is amazing. Maybe things have changed in the last five years? I dunno.
I do know that I've upgraded my CPU, my RAM, my Video card, added a sound card, added a RAID controller, removed a RAID controller, removed a CD-ROM, added a DVD burner and my legit copy of Vista Ultimate never got angry or did anything wrong.
If you *don't* authenticate your copy of Windows - all that happens is that you can't install particular updates and you get nag-ware. It remains functional.
I'm the first to complain about ridiculous methods companies make legit users go through to use their products (like requiring the DVD be in the drive - drives me crazy). But, I don't have a problem with the Windows Activation.
Vista requires an internet connection. It's right on the box and on the website. In this day and age, it's reasonable to require internet access. For 99% of people who buy Vista (probably more like 99.999%) this is a non-issue.
Activation is painless, it takes, literally seconds. And then it's done.
Maybe I'm missing something; but I don't see any reason to get my panties in a wad over this.
Besides that, there is a lot more continued development to an OS like Vista than to the crappy game I'm trying to play that demands the CD be in the drive. And, without that CD - the game won't play. Without activating Windows - it just nags me a bit. Activating let's you get all of the Service packs and updates and what not, good things to have.
It just doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.
Re:FTFA: 2000 bugs fixed (Score:3, Informative)
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 Definition Audio Controller (rev 01)
I think you'll agree none of this is unusual -- in fact, it's all pretty generic stuff. Neither Vista nor XP handled it and I had to, as documented, go download the driver installers one by one, and install them one by one. They all worked fine out of the box on my Ubuntu install (which is where I just pulled the above information, since I'm still using the same laptop, only now I'm on 8.04).
So, that's as much proof as I can give you. I admit it'd have been better if I'd thought to take some screenshots but whatever.
Virtually everything can use the fallback LAN driver in Windows.
And yet I've never seen that happen. I've had the same experience on my company's old Dell 600m laptops as well, by the way, so it's not just some fluke of the nx7400s. Come to think of it, I had to go through this dance when I installed Vista 64 on my custom-built workstation at home two years ago, and that thing also has some generic Intel on-board ethernet.
Are you serious? You've never seen an updated driver package on Windows Update?
Okay, true, I have seen drivers update, but I've never seen new drivers get installed during the whole "NEW HARDWARE DETECTED! WOULD YOU LIKE WINDOWS TO SEARCH ONLINE FOR DRIVERS?" thing. That's what I was talking about, so I guess I misread, but I stand by what I said in that context -- Windows claims to have this vast online repository of drivers, but nobody has ever actually gotten drivers that way to my knowledge. Being able to update drivers isn't all that impressive if I have to move mountains to get the drivers in the first place, you know what I'm sayin'?
You're not doing anything with Ubuntu.
Three years of using it as my only OS at work as a sysadmin for a mixed-platform environment would seem to disagree.
How about that Brother printer? Does the Linux driver support ALL the features of the Brother printer? I bet not.
Don't know. I only plugged my machine into it long enough to test the printer, and it worked, as far as printing and scanning using xsane. That's all I cared about -- what "features" am I missing? I have no idea because if I'm missing anything they're features so unimportant that I'd never give a damn. It prints, it scans, what the hell else do I need it to do?