MS's Excruciating Update Cycles

  • Thread starter Thread starter CMM
  • Start date Start date
C

CMM

Just discovered yet another out and out *retarded* bug in VS2005... this
time in the way Application_Startup /w the Application Framework enabled
works (yes, it's a BUG... it's already doc'd in the MS community forums on
MSDN... it concerns aborting Application_Startup when a SplashScreen is
set).

It's been almost 5 months since VS2005 has been released... and it was
obvious that it badly needed a 2.0.1 patch since the day it was released.
These excruciating MS patch cycles and the MVP apologists "I'd rather wait
to get a well-tested patch" are abhorent. I say patches to fix BUGS should
be FREQUENT. I say, if a patch that is suppossed to FIX bugs creates MORE
bugs, it is bad DEV and not lack of testing. 6 months, 8 months, two years
of testing isn't going to help anything. MS has got to get their act
together. VS2005, while neat and welcomed, is nonetheless extrememly
bug-ridden (in really small and head-smacking ways). If the long-awaited
"2.0.1" release doesn't deliver, I swear I think I've had it with MS.
 
Yikes! Since "Q3" probably means "End-of-Q3 or more likely Start-of-Q4" that
would make it almost one whole year for a bug patch for VS2005. VS2003 never
even got a single one in 4 years... though I would venture to say that in
IMHO VS2003 was a lot more polished than VS2005.... I don't fault MS for
having bugs. Bugs are inevitable. Though some of the bugs in VS2005 are "how
they'd miss that?" head-scratchers, it is all-in-all a great product and a
fantastic upgrade. But their lumbering, overly technocratic (MS needs a
Steve Jobs!!!), and marketing driven release cycles are taking a toll on my
respect and patience... and I'm a long-time defender!


--
-C. Moya
www.cmoya.com
Carlos J. Quintero said:
Hi Carlos,

I agree 100% with you, and in fact I follow that policy of frequents bug
fixes for my own products (I release a new build with bug fixes the 1st
day of the month for all my MZ-Tools add-ins). I suppose that bigger
products like VS 2005 require some more months but certainly I would also
prefer more frequent SPs (at least two per year).

The first SP for VS 2005 is scheduled for Q3 2006:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/support/servicing/default.aspx

And for what is worth, it will not only fix bugs but also will introduce
new features, such as a new Web Application project type (project-based,
not folder-based, with a single output assembly) as we had in VS.NET 2003

--

Best regards,

Carlos J. Quintero

MZ-Tools: Productivity add-ins for Visual Studio
You can code, design and document much faster:
http://www.mztools.com
Click to expand...
 
CMM said:
Just discovered yet another out and out *retarded* bug in VS2005... this
time in the way Application_Startup /w the Application Framework enabled
works (yes, it's a BUG... it's already doc'd in the MS community forums on
MSDN... it concerns aborting Application_Startup when a SplashScreen is
set).

It's been almost 5 months since VS2005 has been released... and it was
obvious that it badly needed a 2.0.1 patch since the day it was released.
These excruciating MS patch cycles and the MVP apologists "I'd rather wait
to get a well-tested patch" are abhorent.
Click to expand...

I partly agree with you. While I believe that it's important that patches
are well-tested and if they are not security-related should be published in
Service Packs by default to prevent a version jungle, I believe that
Microsoft should have released VS 2005 at a later point of time because of
the huge number of known (and potentially unknown) bugs in the software. I
understand that Microsoft needs to release new versions of their software in
order to get the money to pay for their employees, but I hope that Microsoft
has learned from the mistake of having a too short period of time for
testing and bug fixing prior to releasing the final version.
 
Herfried,

I understand that Microsoft needs to release new versions of their
software in order to get the money to pay for their employees, but I hope
that Microsoft has learned from the mistake of having a too short period
of time for testing and bug fixing prior to releasing the final version.
Click to expand...

I think that guessing is not one of the things that we should do, as well
not advice Microsoft.

It are no kids working there. This kind of thing happens to every software
developers. The internal powers are often to strong to prevent that.
Afterwards it is of course easy to tell what should have been done.

Just my thought,

Cor.
 
Carlos,

Is this not a little bit overdone. Are you sure that the bugs are equally
between the new and the old things.

Otherwise, why not just use the old things from Net 1.x than you get exact
what you want.

I have seen in the things which existed in Net 1.x already only
improvements.

Just my thought,

Cor
 
Cor,

Cor Ligthert said:
I think that guessing is not one of the things that we should do, as well
not advice Microsoft.

It are no kids working there. This kind of thing happens to every software
developers. The internal powers are often to strong to prevent that.
Afterwards it is of course easy to tell what should have been done.
Click to expand...

Well, there have been very loud claims to delay release of VS 2005 from
outside Microsoft already some weeks before the final release. I remember
many bug reports not considered for fixing in VS 2005 because of the limited
time until the final release date. I do not remember similar claims when
VS.NET 2003 has been released, which was IMO a very stable release. And
yes, as a Microsoft customer I claim the right for me to tell what I am
thinking about product politics in the public.
 
Hi Cor,
I think that guessing is not one of the things that we should do, as well
not advice Microsoft.
Click to expand...

Really? As any business (software-related or not) book states, it is
paramount for any commercial company to listen to his customers, which is
also common sense. It is also common sense to fix bugs as soon as possible.
If you end doing poor products, people won´t buy them, revenues will suffer
and shareholders will get nothing... most organizations are willing to
listen to customers and to learn from experiences and opinions. There are
things that are unique to MS given its dominance of the Windows and
developer tools markets, but any other company could not afford long periods
without service packs.

:-)

Just my 2 cents.

--

Best regards,

Carlos J. Quintero

MZ-Tools: Productivity add-ins for Visual Studio
You can code, design and document much faster:
http://www.mztools.com
 
I don't agree that MS should have waited longer to release VS2005. I mean,
just how much more testing could they have done??? They did A LOT of testing
beforehand with community betas and everything. Some bugs just don't
manifest themselves until lots of real-world usage.

What they need to do is restructure their development (management!,
practices!, philosophies!) to allow for more frequent patching WITHOUT fear
of breaking stuff. I mean, come on! *We* have to do it don't we?!....
imagine telling your employer you cannot fix a minor but excruciatingly
productivity-draining bug in their CRM lifeline application for a YEAR?!?!

The fact of the matter is that MS is slow and lumbering. And it is becoming
maddening. I shouldn't have to wait ONE YEAR to see an (admittedly minor but
definately unweildy and productivity draining) bug fix come to fruition.
It's unforgivable.
 
You're an apologist Cor. It is impossible to argue against the "just go use
Notepad" mentality.
 
Carlos and Herfried,

If I should gues than one of my guesses is that some persons (mostly that is
in a company Marketing) have listen to much to some customers.

I have seen these dotnet newsgroups full of complaints why Visual Studio Net
2005 was not yet released yet while the Beta 2 was so good. For that the Go
Live license was created.

Those same people are now crying about service packs. What is the purpose of
a Service pack if it is not ready yet.

As I said just my thought,

Cor
 
Hi Herfried,
I remember many bug reports not considered for fixing in VS 2005 because
of the limited time until the final release date.
Click to expand...

Yep, they delayed several from mine, quite frustrating. Since the product
was named VS 2005, it had to ship in 2005... with Windows (Vista) they don´t
have this problem, the release can be delayed to January 2007 for home
users... said:
I do not remember similar claims when VS.NET 2003 has been released, which
was IMO a very stable release.
Click to expand...

VS.NET 2003 was more close to VS.NET 2002, so there were no many new
destabilizing changes. Also, the MSDN Product Feedback Center, which exposes
all the reported bugs, was not in place for VS.NET 2003.
And yes, as a Microsoft customer I claim the right for me to tell what I
am thinking about product politics in the public.
Click to expand...

Right. Supposedly MS has to listen to you twice: as a end user, and as MVP
;-)

--

Best regards,

Carlos J. Quintero

MZ-Tools: Productivity add-ins for Visual Studio
You can code, design and document much faster:
http://www.mztools.com
 
Hi Cor,

I think that I don´t fully understand your reasoning below, I just want to
say that bug fixing is something very important for many people...

--

Best regards,

Carlos J. Quintero

MZ-Tools: Productivity add-ins for Visual Studio
You can code, design and document much faster:
http://www.mztools.com
 
I think that I don´t fully understand your reasoning below, I just want to
say that bug fixing is something very important for many people...
Click to expand...
Carlos for me the same.

However, I assume that you have seen as well more than once the trouble
when bug fixing was not well done?

Is not often Murphy which is very active in bug fixing?

As well, the framework is like an OS. How many servicepack do you see
regulary about those?

:-)

Cor
 
Cor Ligthert said:
If I should gues than one of my guesses is that some persons (mostly that
is in a company Marketing) have listen to much to some customers.

I have seen these dotnet newsgroups full of complaints why Visual Studio
Net 2005 was not yet released yet while the Beta 2 was so good. For that
the Go Live license was created.
Click to expand...

I believe that the ASP.NET part and the core .NET Framework was/is pretty
stable, but the VS 2005 IDE isn't. So it's not such a huge problem to
actually use .NET 2.0-based solutions on a server than developing them.
 
Hi Cor,

MS has learnt to ship monthly bug fixes for the a whole family of Windows OS
when the needs justify it. I am referring to the security patches.... why?
Because the people won´t tolerate unsecure products that can jeopardize
their machines if attacked...

And as far as I am concerned, they only introduced a problem in one of the
fixes, and in turn was fixed in the next month.

--

Best regards,

Carlos J. Quintero

MZ-Tools: Productivity add-ins for Visual Studio
You can code, design and document much faster:
http://www.mztools.com
 
Those same people are now crying about service packs. What is the purpose
of a Service pack if it is not ready yet.
Click to expand...

Because it doesn't have be a darn "Service Pack"... complete with the
kitchen sink. If they fixed the Application_StartUp /w StartupScreen bug 10
months ago, why do they need to wait another 10 months to release it as part
of one big "Service Pack?"

I can understand if the bug is a fundamental Framework bug. But almost all
of the bugs (that I have encountered) in VS2005 are IDE, designer, code
generator, plain stupid GUI bugs... not CLR or dotnetfx ones.
 
CMM said:
I don't agree that MS should have waited longer to release VS2005. I mean,
just how much more testing could they have done??? They did A LOT of
testing beforehand with community betas and everything. Some bugs just
don't manifest themselves until lots of real-world usage.
Click to expand...

I believe that many bugs people are complaining about today have been
well-known prior to the release of the final version. It's not people
complaining about bugs some months after the release of the product. People
already complained about many "won't fix"/"postponed" bugs some weeks before
the release, and now continue complaining about these bugs and some bugs
discovered additionally after the final release.
What they need to do is restructure their development (management!,
practices!, philosophies!) to allow for more frequent patching WITHOUT
fear of breaking stuff. I mean, come on! *We* have to do it don't we?!....
Click to expand...

Well, Microsoft not understanding what stability like language and
technology stability is actually meaning is not new. Also Microsoft not
understanding some basic concepts of technologies invented by others is
nothing new. However, I think that it's better to have only few versions of
a certain software product released than every machine out there running a
different version of the product because of numerous individual patches.
 
However, I assume that you have seen as well more than once the trouble
when bug fixing was not well done?
Click to expand...

If MS can't get an oficial release right AND they can't get a bug fix right,
then something is fundamentally wrong. At least, if they weren't so
lumbering they would at least be able to quickly correct the "bad bug fix."
As well, the framework is like an OS. How many servicepack do you see
regulary about those?
Click to expand...

I agree with your comment about the framework. Which is why I pointed out in
another post that most of the bugs that bother me have nothing to do with
the Framework, but rather with the IDE, designers, code generators, and
plain and/or shortsighted bad GUI design. But, now that I think of it.... I
wouldn't mind more frequent OS updates too. The lumbering horrendously slow
responsiveness to IE exploits (evidence in just the last two weeks!) is a
testament to that.
 
Herfried,

What was the name of that guy in this newsgroup who often told in past that
we would benefit more from a good working IDE than one with extra things as
Edit and Continue which were not working. I know the name from the guy who
assured me that that would not happen.

However by instance the windows form designer from 2005 outclasses in my
idea the IDE from 2003 completely, which had in that part in my opinion more
buggy problems than the 2005 version. However we were happy because the 2002
was worse.

By the way, were did you get the idea that the ASPNet part is good. In my
idea have I seen more complaints about that than about Windowforms. The term
over-engineered I have read in one of these newsgroups fits for me the most
in that. Although you know as well that there is taken much effort to heal
the troubles.

Cor
 
I agree and would add: If MS were quick to release patches, it would also be
quick to release fixes for the rare "bad patch."
"Slowness" on the other hand guarantees nothing.
 
Back
Top