Submitted by Microsoft will release updates to the beta of Windows Vista every month until the gold master release to corporate customers in November, the software giant’s Australian Windows chief revealed today. Jeff Putt, Director, Windows Client, Microsoft Australia revealed the plan in a briefing to journalists at Microsoft’s headquarters in Sydney today.
“We’re on the bug-hunt”, he said.
I cannot imagine the amount of effort that goes into pulling together all of the code for a Vista release. I wonder how many man-hours one of these beta releases represents.
MS has realized that they can’t really quash the bugs like they need to with just their internal labs and a couple partners doing testing. Releasing betas is the only way to get enough coverage for people to find bugs. Finding bugs now means they can be fixed more quickly since not as much back-compatibility testing needs to be done.
It maybe a lot of hours, but it’s the only way to a stable product. I hope this means they won’t need two service packs before this beast is semi-useable.
Amen!
Finding bugs now means they can be fixed more quickly since not as much back-compatibility testing needs to be done.
Microsoft will always put backwards compatibilty before quality, security and stability – its their mantra; I mean, when you have half witts who consider ‘legacy code’ as an ‘assett’, there is something wrong.
Sorry, but when you fix a bug, having to provide a work around, the correct function and fix the bug itself, the question should be asked, why not just fix the damn bug and be damned if a few half baked, poorly written applications are broken in the process; it is the third parties responsibility to provide service packs, not Microsofts responsibility to perpetually provide backwards compatibility.
Release and fix, show a new release so you don’t keep getting the same reports of the same old bugs.
It’s hard to tell if this will help them meet the january deadline.
I doubt it.
I hope they’ve been hiring.
The process of releasing incremental betas is a fairly classic testing technique, actually, and predates Linux by a few decades (literally).
Of course it is a classic testing technique, but they have not (publicly) utilized it until now. This is a scale of beta release and testing heretofore not seen for Microsoft products. Since the GNU/Linux distributions are the best known proponents of this method and are putting a (small) bit of pressure on MS, I think it is a valid point…as is yours.
Microsoft used to put up weekly builds for Windows betas, but only for testers.
Which is the distinction being discussed…my understanding of this program is that the monthlies will be public betas, something that is quite the departure from the norm for Microsoft.
Oh, okay. Linux *is* a high-profile example, after all. 🙂
Oh, wonderful. Now Microsoft fanboys will be able to respond to any criticism of Vista with, “did you file a bug report? No? Then shut up!”
They seem to be learning some new techniques. Say what you will of Microsoft, but they are not stupid.
Releasing betas and getting bug reports from users and developers…sound familiar? It looks like they have learned from some of the strengths of their competition. The more people they have using their betas (and reporting bugs) the better the release should be.
This is a decidedly different approach for them and it shows that they are willing to adopt some of their competitors’ methods. Kudos to whomever pushed this through at MS.
PS – Am I the only one who *loved* the picture of Jeff Putt they chose? I actually chuckled at my desk.
There should have been a poll here to see how many osnews-readers hoping for Microsoft/Vista to fail.
They need all the help that they can get. Lend a hand to them. Help to build the future.
Participate in the open source movement today!
This has nothing to do with opensource. There is no source code, there is no sharing of code. They are using cheap labour to get their product tested.
Damn that microsoft! Damn them for using enthusiasts who volunteer to test their beta software!
Microsoft doesn’t have to bow to your open source whims. They know what kind of creature they are (closed source) and they act accordingly.
my $.02
Cheers
Morglum
My comment was one of irony…
Still I’d rather see a more bulletproof vista when it comes out, it’s the last you can expect of it.
“This has nothing to do with opensource. There is no source code, there is no sharing of code. They are using cheap labour to get their product tested.”
As do all the Linux distros. This is no different whether there is source code or not. Go ahead and actually sunmit a patch for a Linux program/distro. It will get kicked back unless you are one of the elite that they listen to, and you will get told what happens to you doesn’t, and you must be doing something wrong. Cheap labor is cheap labor, no matter the OS, and having the code makes no difference
I don’t know what your experiences are, but I submitted several bugs and some of them indeed got fixed.
“cheap labor”: you’re right, its not about having the code or not alone; it’s about:
1. Someone works on a product he will charge fees for
2. Someone gives away his efforts’ results for free (and not only the right to use it, but actually, the code/work itself)
So why spend your time to help No. 1 without charging from him? He will even charge from yourself; no matter how many bugs you found.
That’s the difference.
Fine, so what do you propose? Open-sourcing the code is obviously not a choice.
I don’t have a good proposition for Microsoft. They have enough money to pay bughunting, though.
If you find a severe security flaw in a mozilla product (like firefox), you get money from the mozilla foundation. If the mozilla foundation has money for this, Microsoft should have it, too.
Unfortunately out of the 50 or so bugs I submitted none got fixed with Redhat or fedora. All got closed with a status of “Won’t fix”. The problems still exist today.
I do see your point about the charging, as well I understand the need to actually make money to survive in the world. I can appreciate if someone wants to give away the work they do.
That’s bad (about your bugs)
I submitted most of the bugs (which weren’t directly related to my distro, http://www.archlinux.org) to the upstream authors directly.
That works, because my distro mostly has the latest version (without patches), so the bugs are directly related to the latest upstream development.
Some projects would fix my bugs, some not. I switched my mail program because of unfixed bugs. I suppose you switch your distro
they are using everyone to make money. Are we going to get a discount if we beta test their stuff? Probably not. Why support this? They are just going to overprice their product. The community should concentrate on open source products and help them. They give us a product for free and we give them support for free. MS should pay us to beta test.
they are using everyone to make money. Are we going to get a discount if we beta test their stuff? Probably not. Why support this? They are just going to overprice their product. The community should concentrate on open source products and help them. They give us a product for free and we give them support for free. MS should pay us to beta test.
It’s voluntary. You do it or you don’t. If OSS is more rewarding, you should spend your time there. There are thousands of regular testers already that don’t expect payment.
It’s voluntary. You do it or you don’t. If OSS is more rewarding, you should spend your time there. There are thousands of regular testers already that don’t expect payment.
But in the case of Opensource, there is he feel good factor of not only testing the software, but the fact that the software will be free, and you the tester have the freedom to delve through the source code, if you find a bug, but find that due to priorities, the maintainers have chosen to downgrade its importance, you have the ability to fix the problem yourself, rather than being at the mercy of the maintainers timetable – heck, not totally satisfied, then fork the code!
If it is testing Windows, you not only have to pay for the end product, but any bug reports, whether the issues are fixed, will be dictated by whether Microsoft actually gives a stuff about the said issue – what you may consider important, might be completely trivial to Microsoft, thus, they’ll downgrade it to such a point that’ll never get fixed, and you’ll be sitting there, for ever and a day hopeing that it will get fixed.
Edited 2006-06-21 18:29
I for one am happy to help make a product I will be using better by testing it in a non-production environment.
If you don’t have time for it or disagree with it, then don’t do it. Don’t knock people who are hoping to make a product they will be using better. There is nothing wrong with that, no matter how you put it.
All the money in the world will not buy the kind of testing that can be done in the real world, and you should know that.
Microsoft is capitalizing on the fact that people are curious. I tried a beta 1 of Vista a while ago, and I avoid Windows like the plague. (The visual interface was stunning, but the control interface was a sewer. No surprises there.) The people who download this will feel like they’re really getting something neat, a free trial of a whole operating system, which, if you only ever use Windows, seems pretty big. Users of other OSes who download it will get to see what MS has been bragging about all these many, long years. And it’s not necessarily just a bug hunt. Microsoft can use the process to get a general idea of how much interest there is in the release and drum up some user feedback on the various inconveniences they’ve introduced. Trust me, it doesn’t end at the thousands of new confirmation dialogs.
they are using everyone to make money. Are we going to get a discount if we beta test their stuff? Probably not. Why support this? They are just going to overprice their product. The community should concentrate on open source products and help them. They give us a product for free and we give them support for free. MS should pay us to beta test.
Because Microsoft is here and here to stay. Their marketshare will stay as it is, as millions of non-tech users will stick to the OS they get. If our help will make vista and the internet safer and thus protect what we like, it is ourselfs we help with the contribution and not directly Microsoft. Not helping Microsoft results in unknown bugs which might eventually be used by spyware builders, black hat hackers and crackers. This is the possibility to keep that risk as low as possible.
beta 2,3,4, …. 1521?
for which are the developers actually paid for? The users are developing vista and the developers fix the bugs. “cool”, really -.-
I think microsoft should fix the bugs, not the users -.-
By the same token, I think Novell/Redhat/SuSE/etc. should fix the bugs, and not the users.
Now, that wouldn’t work, woud it? So why apply the same asshole logic to Microsoft?
By the same token, I think Novell/Redhat/SuSE/etc. should fix the bugs, and not the users.
They do; when you purchase a support contract, depending on the level of support, your bug reports will get fixed; but unlike the closed source world, the hood of your car isn’t bolted shut, and you’re given he opportunity to download the source code, and fix the problem you have found.
This isn’t a closed-source vs. open-source debate. It’s a debate of whether Microsoft should employ its users to test for bugs. Linux distributions already rely on users to test for bugs, so why can’t Microsoft?
You don’t need the source code to file a bug report.
This isn’t a closed-source vs. open-source debate. It’s a debate of whether Microsoft should employ its users to test for bugs. Linux distributions already rely on users to test for bugs, so why can’t Microsoft?
Please explain?! Linux distributions are not only in source by binary form, the software is free, not only as in beer, but as in speech as well.
There is nothing ‘illegal’ about me downloading a copy of Novell Linux, the only downside, I don’t get paid support; if I want a copy of Red Hat Linux Enterprise Edition, I can download one of the many free distributions based on the original Red Hat provided source code.
The issue isn’t just about users beta testing persay, but beta testing by end users of a product in their own time, then the company turning around and charging for that said product; to me, this so-called ‘testing’ is nothing more than a cunning marketing ploy to get people ‘drooling’ over something.
The issue is also about the value of that beta testing, given that Microsoft has ignored security warnings – take the damning information in regards to Internet Explorer; security issues have been disclosed, and yet, nothing has been done about these issues ( http://secunia.com/product/11/ ) – so where is the value of filing a bug report, if it never actually gets fixed? one might as well shove a chupper-chup up ones own ass for all the good a bug report does.
Edited 2006-06-22 07:55
“beta 2,3,4, …. 1521?
for which are the developers actually paid for? The users are developing vista and the developers fix the bugs. “cool”, really -.-
I think microsoft should fix the bugs, not the users -.-“
Well, Microsoft is fixing the bugs. The users are just finding them, as is always the case with ANY software. So I guess I am wondering how this is different? Developers do not normally find bugs, as they think the code they write is perfect. No, that is not a slam, just a fact that most (not all), get defensive about their work, same as any other profession.
[developers] think the code they write is perfect.
I don’t, I know that my code is perfect
In my experience it depends a lot on the developer.
For example, I debug the mainframe text editor I maintain by using it fulltime to edit its own source code (amongst other things). That ensures that I learn right away if I create an unwanted “feature”, at least in mainline processing. If I can’t eat my own dogfood, why should I expect others to? 🙂
“For example, I debug the mainframe text editor I maintain by using it fulltime to edit its own source code (amongst other things). That ensures that I learn right away if I create an unwanted “feature”, at least in mainline processing. If I can’t eat my own dogfood, why should I expect others to? :-)”
I can definitely appreciate that. I wish more developers did the same
Not that I don’t get defensive if someone is using it wrong. 🙂 🙂 🙂
Everybody has a right to an opinion … but hearing people complain about voluntary beta testing is a bit ridiculous. Nobody is twisting anybody’s arm. If you don’t want to participate, exercise your free will and … gasp … DON’T! It seems that some of you don’t understand why beta versions exist. There are a lot of people whose businesses/livelihood depend on knowing about new OSes; for example, trainers, software developers, companies that want to deploy them, resellers, OEMs, hardware manufacturers. There are very real consequences for not having access to beta testing; ie. lost opportunity costs, delays, etc. Not to mention the many hobbyists and early adopters that are simply curious and/or want to live on the bleeding edge. There’s nothing wrong with that. Clearly, beta testing is in the public interest — because it isn’t just MSFT that benefits when they release a quality product: WE ALL DO.
It seems that some of you don’t understand why beta versions exist.
It has nothing to do with beta versions or anything of the sort. It’s a Microsoft article, so of course the ABM’ers need a reason to inject some sort of negativity into the comments section.
Why I have the feeling that I heard this few months ago ?