Windows 10 question but foremost an apology as well to entire neowin members and staff

[chrisj1968]

I know a lot fo folks here mean well. I have had issues with Windows 10 but be that as it may, I wanted to jump on here, to show all that I'm a man of integrity, to man up and apologize for some of my threads. 

I tend to get quite frustrated and I admit its usually due  to my PTSD and Anxiety disorder from military service. Now that I've gotten a hold of all my drivers issues, I'm very fond of Windows 10 and should not be angry anymore nor frustrated with this OS from here on out. unless it gives me the middle finger of course :D. 

But please accept my apologies and I hope we can clear the air on this whole thing. If not, I understand. 

Now to stay within th econfines of this forum being windows 10, about how long will MS be issuing updated builds until they define Windows 10 as fully complete? or are we seeing the start of the SAS scheme of things starting with MS's  plan?

many thanks,

Chrisj1968

[neufuse Veteran]

I don't think windows will ever be "complete" now... we're on a perpetual update system it appears

[kozukumi]

I expect Microsoft to continue rolling updates out to Windows 10 until they announce Windows vNext. I know they say "it is the last version of Windows" but there are still many design flaws in Windows that will need to change at some point as technology allows it.

It would make sense for Windows to change when Windows Server changes. Perhaps not every time but at some point there will be a version after Windows 10.

[chrisj1968]

so in effect, they could roll right into the next windows OS by simply sending a build through the pipeline?

[margrave]

I'm so tired of the perpetual update concept. It's like no one can make a finished product anymore.

[chrisj1968]

I'm so tired of the perpetual update concept. It's like no one can make a finished product anymore.

I'm kind of thinking this build release system is more along the lines of Linux. of course they have a version XX.XX release but updates are rolled out constantly or a newer version of the OS can be installed through the update. That could turn out to be a bonus rather than detractor

[Nick H. Supervisor]

...about how long will MS be issuing updated builds until they define Windows 10 as fully complete? or are we seeing the start of the SAS scheme of things starting with MS's  plan?

Windows 10 as you see it is what they are calling "complete." There will be no new system in the future, just additions and modifications to Windows 10. That's the line they're working with, anyway. Margrave's post sums up my feelings on the idea quite nicely.

I'm so tired of the perpetual update concept. It's like no one can make a finished product anymore.

I was explaining this to an older friend of mine this evening. He asked why his mobile phone was constantly trying to update applications. My response was that because of the age of technology we're in, developers don't feel as inclined to make sure their product is 100% ready for release. They'll release it as soon as it is "usable" but then continue to release updates as the public contact them about bugs. This covers all sorts of software, from applications to games to operating systems.

When it comes to Windows 10 my issues are minor when it comes to the released product. But there is still the mentality that with the new procedure that they have introduced, we are all paying gamma testers rather than true customers.

[kozukumi]

so in effect, they could roll right into the next windows OS by simply sending a build through the pipeline?

Yup. You get an alert saying Windows 11 is out and it will cost you $X and it updates.

Or maybe they go the route of charging smaller amounts for specific features or feature-sets so you can buy feature X for $10 or the whole package for $100, etc.

I'm so tired of the perpetual update concept. It's like no one can make a finished product anymore.

I can understand that point of view, especially in business. As a home user I don't really care much.

I agree on the the whole perpetual beta type problem though (that is what I call it anyway). Windows 10 was almost a minimum viable product on release with the promise of more features and changes in future updates.

Windows 10 as you see it is what they are calling "complete." There will be no new system in the future, just additions and modifications to Windows 10. That's the line they're working with, anyway. Margrave's post sums up my feelings on the idea quite nicely.

 

I was explaining this to an older friend of mine this evening. He asked why his mobile phone was constantly trying to update applications. My response was that because of the age of technology we're in, developers don't feel as inclined to make sure their product is 100% ready for release. They'll release it as soon as it is "usable" but then continue to release updates as the public contact them about bugs. This covers all sorts of software, from applications to games to operating systems.

When it comes to Windows 10 my issues are minor when it comes to the released product. But there is still the mentality that with the new procedure that they have introduced, we are all paying gamma testers rather than true customers.

Yeah the whole minimum viable product that is oh so popular for web applications in the startup world. It isn't too bad for webapps though as they are so easy to roll out an update too. Doing the same to an OS with hundreds of MB to a couple of GB for updates is a whole new game though and for some it isn't going to be all that nice. A lot of the world doesn't have super fast and unlimited internet access so not sure how Microsoft are going to deal with that one.

[oldtimefighter]

I'm so tired of the perpetual update concept. It's like no one can make a finished product anymore.

 

Windows 10 as you see it is what they are calling "complete." There will be no new system in the future, just additions and modifications to Windows 10. That's the line they're working with, anyway. Margrave's post sums up my feelings on the idea quite nicely.

 

I was explaining this to an older friend of mine this evening. He asked why his mobile phone was constantly trying to update applications. My response was that because of the age of technology we're in, developers don't feel as inclined to make sure their product is 100% ready for release. They'll release it as soon as it is "usable" but then continue to release updates as the public contact them about bugs. This covers all sorts of software, from applications to games to operating systems.

When it comes to Windows 10 my issues are minor when it comes to the released product. But there is still the mentality that with the new procedure that they have introduced, we are all paying gamma testers rather than true customers.

 

I don't recall past Windows versions ever being complete with no remaining bugs when released... Vista? XP? 98? Why would you want your OS to be "finished" anyway? That means no more progress... Are you guys among those remaining XP users or something?

Software is never "finished" and it's always been like that and Windows 10 is no different. You can argue it was released a little more premature then past Windows versions but that is about it.

[Circaflex]

 

 

I don't recall past Windows versions ever being complete with no remaining bugs when released... Vista? XP? 98? Why would you want your OS to be "finished" anyway? That means no more progress... Are you guys among those remaining XP users or something?

Software is never "finished" and it's always been like that and Windows 10 is no different. You can argue it was released a little more premature then past Windows versions but that is about it.

Exactly, this is nothing really new, I mean have you guys forgot about the various Service Packs? Look, I get it, with the age of technology and social media, often times these types of things are blown out of proportion. You have the anti-Microsoft websites often reporting on how terrible Windows is at launch, etc, and you have tech sites blowing small things out of proportion to gain users and ad-click revenues, BUT Windows 10 has been no worse than any other launch. XP was by far the worst after 98ME edition. Moving to the NT Kernel was a disaster and XP really wasn't the stable OS we know it to be, until about SP2. There were a ton of bugs, but most of the problems were drivers which weren't Microsoft's fault, but the fault of the OEM. Same goes for Vista, it is known as a disaster but I know plenty of people, myself included, who had the correct hardware to run it and had zero issues. Many issues were again driver related, not the fault of Microsoft. I think the Windows 10 hate is ridiculous, is it perfect? No, and there has never been an OS launched that was perfect out of the gates, but it really is not as bad as it has been reported. Many people are installing these on machines that the OEM has not updated any drivers for Windows 10, or flat out doesn't support Windows 10, and when things go wrong its Windows 10 fault somehow.

[adrynalyne]

I'm so tired of the perpetual update concept. It's like no one can make a finished product anymore.

par for the course.

You evolve with times, or you die off.

[binaryzero]

I'm so tired of the perpetual update concept. It's like no one can make a finished product anymore.

LOL! You should stop using any software that includes an option to check for updates.

chrisj1968 - you can't blame Microsoft for your driver issues when they weren't the manufacturer of your computer hardware. It's up to them to rewrite compatible drivers, not Microsoft. 

[Barney T. Administrators]

Thank you for your kind post. We really appreciate it.

[Dot Matrix]

I'm kinda wondering why people seem to think the software update and release cycle is something new? We live in a day and age where updates can be delivered faster, and don't need to wait on a service pack.

[Quillz]

I'm so tired of the perpetual update concept. It's like no one can make a finished product anymore.

Software is never finished. If Windows was truly finished, then Windows 1.01 back in 1985 would have been the first and last version. When WinXP was released in 2001, there was no way of knowing that just a few months later, it would be hit big by some then new worms and viruses, prompting what would eventually become SP1.

The somewhat rolling release model of Win10 doesn't bother me for this reason. The RTM is quite good and stable, but there are always going to be bugs, that's the nature of programming, and there will always be ways to fix things, make things better, add improvements, etc. When Microsoft released IE6 in 2001, it was a "finished product" and thus they let it sit for years without anything new. Along came Firefox with tabs, better bookmarking, etc. (Granted, IE6's stagnation was largely more about market share than anything else).

[Quillz]

I'm kinda wondering why people seem to think the software update and release cycle is something new? We live in a day and age where updates can be delivered faster, and don't need to wait on a service pack.

I agree, this is a good point. Many software products, like Chrome and Firefox, have moved to smaller, regular updates on a much more timely basis. Given how fast things travel over the Internet now, including viruses, worms, malware, etc. it just makes sense.

Do people really honestly want to go back to the days where you had to go to a store and buy a box just to get a new version of your operating system with only minor fixes? I remember actually buying a boxed version of Win98 SE in 1999. Today, it would be delivered via Windows Update as either a service pack or a series of small updates.

[Dot Matrix]

I'm so tired of the perpetual update concept. It's like no one can make a finished product anymore.

Can you define finished for me, please?

[binaryzero]

^ MS-DOS 6.22 on 3 floppies finished... 

[Ironman273]

It's never been that way before, and it's not going to start now.  They finish the "base" then fix bugs and add features as needed.  OS X has had some updates over the last year of release, Ubuntu releases twice a year, etc.

[Ironman273]

^ MS-DOS 6.22 on 3 floppies finished... 

6.22 was an update to 6 (well, 6.21 to be exact).  It was the last release of 6 before they updated to 7 in Windows 95.

[binaryzero]

...It was a joke.

[kozukumi]

I'm kinda wondering why people seem to think the software update and release cycle is something new? We live in a day and age where updates can be delivered faster, and don't need to wait on a service pack.

Not that I disagree but it is easy to say that when you live in New York with fast, unlimited internet. 

I agree, this is a good point. Many software products, like Chrome and Firefox, have moved to smaller, regular updates on a much more timely basis. Given how fast things travel over the Internet now, including viruses, worms, malware, etc. it just makes sense.

Do people really honestly want to go back to the days where you had to go to a store and buy a box just to get a new version of your operating system with only minor fixes? I remember actually buying a boxed version of Win98 SE in 1999. Today, it would be delivered via Windows Update as either a service pack or a series of small updates.

Chrome and Firefox are updates in the tens of MB at most. Windows is a bit different with non-critical updates being pushed out weekly that can eat into data caps. 

[chrisj1968]

I could get behind a windows 11 build alert and make payment then download to install. It appears that the days of CD/DVD or USB installs are close to being obsolete.

[eddman]

OS X's been around since 2001, and no one calls it unfinished. Apple chose to stick to one OS and update it as they went along. Now it seems that MS has adopted a similar approach.

[Quillz]

OS X's been around since 2001, and no one calls it unfinished. Apple chose to stick to one OS and update it as they went along. Now it seems that MS has adopted a similar approach.

Actually, OS X received a lot of (very warranted) criticism for being an unfinished, buggy mess when it was first released. To be fair, it was an entirely new platform (at least as far as Mac users were concerned), but it crashed a lot, was very, very slow, had lots of minor, annoying bugs and took away many features that existed in OS 9.

Not that I disagree but it is easy to say that when you live in New York with fast, unlimited internet. 

Chrome and Firefox are updates in the tens of MB at most. Windows is a bit different with non-critical updates being pushed out weekly that can eat into data caps. 

That's why I'm not in favor of Win10 not allowing the user to defer upgrades. That was a bad decision by Microsoft.