Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th May 2013 17:38 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Windows "Today at the JP Morgan Technology, Media & Telecom Conference in Boston, Tami Reller shared with the audience that the update previously referred to as 'Windows Blue' will be called Windows 8.1 and will be a free update to Windows 8 for consumers through the Windows Store." They really didn't have much of a choice, but good news anyway.
Thread beginning with comment 561574
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Proof of failure
by Kochise on Tue 14th May 2013 20:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Proof of failure"
Kochise
Member since:
2006-03-03

Windows is not made by a shareware releaser, but a massive corporation. Now they decided to go on a yearly release basis, good for them if they cope the pace. I bet that at their level of expertise, especially since they are following their own standart, they could ensure a minimum of code quality and functionnality. At least I hope them all the goods in that matter.

Kochise

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Proof of failure
by lucas_maximus on Tue 14th May 2013 20:54 in reply to "RE[3]: Proof of failure"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Windows is not made by a shareware releaser, but a massive corporation.


What has this got to do with anything .. exactly nothing.

Now they decided to go on a yearly release basis, good for them if they cope the pace. I bet that at their level of expertise, especially since they are following their own standard, they could ensure a minimum of code quality and functionality. At least I hope them all the goods in that matter.


They can cope with the pace or they wouldn't be doing it. Because they have a proper testing framework, proper test cases and proper tools to do them with.

You guys pretend Microsoft is a start-up that doesn't know what it is doing. Windows releases these days are painless compared to the 2000/XP/Vista days ... and you guys make snide remarks about their competence.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Proof of failure
by Kochise on Tue 14th May 2013 21:06 in reply to "RE[4]: Proof of failure"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

You was the one that insinuated that code can be full of bugs in the first place, dude. That's something unwanted from such a large corporation that demand a high price for its ptoduct. Would you accrpt the same level of defects from a car, which are rather complex too nowadays (regarding to electronic equipments from various suppliers yet working all together rather flawlessly).

I can accept bugs in the code, but as you request a secure os from ground up in another post, thanks to secure boot, this whole "security" can fall like a card construct if the os is flawed from within. And so you told me that any code is inherently bug ridden. Let me cook some pop-corn before continuing this thread...

Kochise

Reply Parent Score: 1