Windows 10 1809 out

ubuysa

The BSOD Doctor
I was under the impression from the article that it doesn't replace them but also it doesn't prompt you?

Yes my mistake. I didn't check the contents of the files after extracting them twice, I made the classic mistake of assuming. :eek:

I just ran a proper test with some text files and it doesn't replace the files, even those that have been changed in either the source or destination. It seems that if the file names exist in the destination then extract does nothing, and no, it doesn't prompt you at all.
 

Tony1044

Prolific Poster
Yes my mistake. I didn't check the contents of the files after extracting them twice, I made the classic mistake of assuming. :eek:

I just ran a proper test with some text files and it doesn't replace the files, even those that have been changed in either the source or destination. It seems that if the file names exist in the destination then extract does nothing, and no, it doesn't prompt you at all.

That just sucks.

I can - just about - understand something like a vendor-specific keyboard driver/filter not being picked up.

But things like the inbuilt extraction utility doing this, or deleting users files...especially given that at least one of those was reported in the fast ring - that is utterly inexcusable.

I've been playing with the LTSB release lately - the downside is it's based on an older version of Windows 10 and it's only available for MAPS/Enterprise users, but the plus side is no regular "feature" updates, just security patching, and all the cruft like the store and live tiles are removed. Haven't tested it in anger yet, just on a VM, but it's starting to look very attractive for my day-to-day machine
 

ubuysa

The BSOD Doctor
That just sucks.

I can - just about - understand something like a vendor-specific keyboard driver/filter not being picked up.

But things like the inbuilt extraction utility doing this, or deleting users files...especially given that at least one of those was reported in the fast ring - that is utterly inexcusable.

I've been playing with the LTSB release lately - the downside is it's based on an older version of Windows 10 and it's only available for MAPS/Enterprise users, but the plus side is no regular "feature" updates, just security patching, and all the cruft like the store and live tiles are removed. Haven't tested it in anger yet, just on a VM, but it's starting to look very attractive for my day-to-day machine

I just don't get this, well I do, but I really don't....! :confused:

I understand very well why business would want the LTSB and thus I understand why it's only available in the Enterprise version. But that means that Microsoft have to continue to support some relatively old versions of Windows 10 that are missing feature updates - so why can't they offer that support to everyone?
 

Oussebon

Multiverse Poster
..who are they gonna test the features on en masse to ensure they're safe for enterprise clients?

I don't buy into tinfoil hat-ism, conspiracies, and such, but it does feel like consumers are being used as beta testers, with evidence being the apparently poor processes for vetting products before releasing them.

And what are we gonna do about it? Switch to Linux where you can't always just point and click things, and where our games / software won't all run (/run as well)?
 
Last edited:

ubuysa

The BSOD Doctor
..who are they gonna test the features on en masse to ensure they're safe for enterprise clients?

I don't buy into tinfoil hat-ism, conspiracies, and such, but it does feel like consumers are being used as beta testers, with evidence being the apparently poor processes for vetting products before releasing them.

And what are we gonna do about it? Switch to Linux where you can't always just point and click things, and where our games / software won't all run (/run as well)?

Yep, completely agree. ISTR that Microsoft let a whole bunch of testers go some years ago, I guess they decided that users could do all the testing. :eek:

Users, even true Beta testers, are neither systematic nor comprehensive and the Feedback Hub has way too many posts saying the same thing in different ways and people ranting. I'm not surprised Microsoft can't weed out the important reports from the dross.

IMO Microsoft either need to do one of four things (or even all of them)...

1. Implement a systematic and comprehensive testing regime, and that could involve users, though they'd need to be given specific testing objectives and a proper reporting format to use. IMO this should separate those testing upgrade-in-place from those testing clean installs so that Microsoft know which issues are caused by the upgrade-in-place process and which are in the base code.

2. Move from a 6-month development cycle to a 12-month development and testing cycle. This would allow more time to test the code as it was being written and more time for an inner testing ring (using proper testing methodology) to catch the big bugs before it was released to the insider rings for Beta testing.

3. Allow all users to opt out of Feature Updates (but not security updates) and allow them to opt back in at any time too.

4. Never allow Windows to do an automatic upgrade of a user's system. Automatic security and other updates is fine (and probably even necessary) but upgrades to a new version should always require user agreement.
 

Tony1044

Prolific Poster
Ah see now I see this from both sides of the fence (testing).

On the one hand, you do want professional testers that can follow predetermined scripts to iron out the most obvious bugs (such as deleting files during an update, for example).

But when it comes to wider testing, such as user acceptance, the last thing you want is prescribed testing regimes. What happens there, is the users run through the tests and only the tests and then pass it.

One of the problems with Microsoft these days, is a lot of their testing is automated. I wouldn't even know what that means or how they go about it, but I assume it tries to replicate the first part where it's prescribed tests with what should be predictable results. How you measure them though...

For me, Microsoft miss an important step out - they go from the prescribed, scripted testing straight out to what they consider beta testing...it isn't...it's really alpha testing and then the general public become their unpaid mass beta testers. They need those expert testers back in.

In terms of LTSB products...bear in mind you still get security patching. Although, from a Windows 10 perspective, MS do state you shouldn't use LTSB as your day-to-day machine.

Bearing in mind that ALL of their server products though are LTSB versions - 10 years of support and security patching as standard. So it's what an Enterprise would want and expect.
 

Rakk

The Awesome
Moderator
One of the problems with Microsoft these days, is a lot of their testing is automated. I wouldn't even know what that means or how they go about it, but I assume it tries to replicate the first part where it's prescribed tests with what should be predictable results. How you measure them though...
Automated testing is actually really very clever, I was writing scripts for an automated test tool many years ago, you programmed it to do exactly what a specified test did required and it did it - including actual clicking on buttons, the person programming it also tells it what the expected result should be and so it can either pass or fail - obviously it can only test stuff the tester has exactly set up, and unless than tester has infinite times there's no way to test absolutely everything. One of the really useful things is because its all automated then stuff can be bulk tested, so instead of one tester trying something 5 times before they get bored, the automated tool can do it 1000 times.
In other words its a very useful tool, but the software does still need testing by people as people are very unpredictable and always seem to do weird stuff that neither the programmer writing the software or the tester writing the automated scripts would think of - I seem to remember getting some bug sent to me at some point and I looked at it and my initial thought was 'Why the hell would they do it like that! That makes no sense at all' :)
 

ubuysa

The BSOD Doctor
I wouldn't argue with the last two posts and I know there are no easy answers but simply making the latest build available to anyone who wants to play with it and calling that 'testing' is like expecting an infinite number of monkeys to write the full works of Shakespeare....
 

Oussebon

Multiverse Poster
but the software does still need testing by people as people are very unpredictable and always seem to do weird stuff that neither the programmer writing the software or the tester writing the automated scripts would think of
This. It applies equally to any system, IT or otherwise, that it needs to remember it's there to serve the clients/ service users, not the other way around.

Also MS should probably take into account better the feedback provided by the insiders within the current arrangements.

Okay, so it's often easy to find a single person who apparently warned of X problem before it happened when there wasn't necessarily enough evidence to support it. But insiders are a category of people MS have set up precisely so that they can listen to feedback.

When buying this PC I got Win 7 Ultimate for bitlocker, which I didn't really use in the end. I've benefitted from GPE - but apparently you can make work in Win 10 Home anyway. The ability to defer feature updates through the upgrade being Win 10 Pro, however, is probably the thing I've most benefitted from. Which means I've paid MS extra for the privilege of having them mow down other customers before me. 10/10, would be held to ransom again.
 
Last edited:

Rakk

The Awesome
Moderator
I wouldn't argue with the last two posts and I know there are no easy answers but simply making the latest build available to anyone who wants to play with it and calling that 'testing' is like expecting an infinite number of monkeys to write the full works of Shakespeare....

Yeah it's very much my opinion on the beta testing for the new expansion for the game I play as well, they do beta testing for the month before release, but to be honest I suspect at least 60-70% of the people on beta are mostly just there to see what the new expansion is like and working out the quickest way of doing stuff when it goes live and whinging no end about problems and not properly bugging them.
 

Oussebon

Multiverse Poster
It's also (predominantly? in multiplayer titles) to load test servers as I understand it. i.e. the game developers might not be too bothered about any bugs or performance problems that are reported as they already know about a bunch, will address any others after general release, and really just want to be sure their infrastructure will let players play on Day 1 so they don't look bad in the press and get a bunch of refund demands.

but to be honest I suspect at least 60-70% of the people on beta are mostly just there to see what the new expansion is like and working out the quickest way of doing stuff when it goes live and whinging no end about problems and not properly bugging them.

Also the company knows this, and so Beta are probably more about helping drive preorder sales, interest, publicity, etc
 

Rakk

The Awesome
Moderator
Also the company knows this, and so Beta are probably more about helping drive preorder sales, interest, publicity, etc
Hehe, yes, you have to pre-order the expansion to get into beta :)
My excuse is I was going to get the expansion anyways.

Anyways yes testing by the public does do the load testing for you - and do bring up all sorts of weird issues :)
 

Tony1044

Prolific Poster
Microsoft are shooting themselves in the foot with updates.

They need to go back to separating security patches and feature updates;

This trend towards one large cumulative update is good in principle - it allows delta patching where the system will only download and install the relevant parts, but then it obfuscates exactly what went on in each patch cycle making it very difficult to roll back from. Also as far as I am aware it is still only functional where you have SCCM/WUS (so read: enterprise);

Personally I believe that forcing security patches down to end users is a valid approach. Forcing feature updates (which tend to be the most problematic) is not. Yeah, there are times when even security patches cause issues but they're more important than merely giving users a new version of, say Paint;

There really needs to be a better patching and rollback mechanism. You can hear the frustration in the office when SCCM pushes out the patches and people know that they will have a long wait before their machine shuts down and in all likelihood just as long a wait when it restarts next day;

If you're going to stop using professional testers then fine but at least spend more time listening to the insiders.

I can't help but shake the feeling that "agile" has a lot to do with this - the idea that you make fast, regular, mostly untested changes and push them out to see the impact...like most processes, there are right times and wrong times to use them.
 

ubuysa

The BSOD Doctor
I genuinely hadn't seen this when I wrote that last reponse: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/23/microsoft_windows_10_crisis/

From that article...

So three urgent changes are required.

Firstly, reintroduce dedicated testers. Don't rely on automation and the crowd – that clearly isn't working. Raise the prestige of testers in the company. Secondly, repurpose the Insider programme – reclassify it as a fan club. Anything, really. It's not a substitute for professional testers. And thirdly, slow down. The rush to bring immature software to market has clearly deteriorated software quality. Are annual releases such a bad thing? Or even delaying the software until it's actually ready?

...which is more or less what I was saying.
 

ubuysa

The BSOD Doctor
It's 'patch Tuesday' today and it's a good bet that Microsoft will re-release 1809 again today. That's not based on any inside info, it just seems likely is all. I've not heard of any more issues with the insider build so fingers crossed...
 

Rakk

The Awesome
Moderator
It's 'patch Tuesday' today and it's a good bet that Microsoft will re-release 1809 again today. That's not based on any inside info, it just seems likely is all. I've not heard of any more issues with the insider build so fingers crossed...

No no no, not doing a Windows update today, today is expansion day for the game I play, I'm therefore not doing a Windows update, just no, whether it wants me to or not :)
 

SpyderTracks

We love you Ukraine
No no no, not doing a Windows update today, today is expansion day for the game I play, I'm therefore not doing a Windows update, just no, whether it wants me to or not :)

Lols, I hear you! I’ve got destiny 2 playing just how I want it, updates deferred for 3 months!!!
 

Oussebon

Multiverse Poster
If we're placing bets I'd go with no 1809 today, based purely on what a horrendous mess the original launch was. Also one of the big features is ray-tracing features for games, which Nvidia's RTX GPUs can make some use of.. and the recent silence on RTX games has been deafening. If Windows was finally going to support RTX in a general release version, I'd have expected a hype level of at least 8999, possibly over 9000.
 
Top