Why Microsoft can't fix bugs - official.
-
Just seen How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a lightbulb?[^] in the CP daily news. A bug fix is one kind of change to the behaviour of the product, and all changes have similar costs and go through a similar process. Any new feature which does not serve a large percentage of those users is essentially stealing valuable resources that could be spent implementing features, fixing bugs or looking for security vulnerabilities that DO impact the lives of millions of people. But isn't the problem that MS involve so many people in the process that the processes outweigh the actual work? Aren't the procedures causing the problem, instead of solving it? Or is that level of involvement inevitable when a company reaches a certain size? (I stopped working for large companies a loooong time ago as I prefer to have as much flexibility as I can get) Maybe it's just me, but it all sounds like "We don't fix bugs because you don't matter to us: we have your money already".
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
-
Just seen How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a lightbulb?[^] in the CP daily news. A bug fix is one kind of change to the behaviour of the product, and all changes have similar costs and go through a similar process. Any new feature which does not serve a large percentage of those users is essentially stealing valuable resources that could be spent implementing features, fixing bugs or looking for security vulnerabilities that DO impact the lives of millions of people. But isn't the problem that MS involve so many people in the process that the processes outweigh the actual work? Aren't the procedures causing the problem, instead of solving it? Or is that level of involvement inevitable when a company reaches a certain size? (I stopped working for large companies a loooong time ago as I prefer to have as much flexibility as I can get) Maybe it's just me, but it all sounds like "We don't fix bugs because you don't matter to us: we have your money already".
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
OriginalGriff wrote:
Or is that level of involvement inevitable when a company reaches a certain size?
No, it is not inevitable. Microsoft is notorious for its layers of management, which makes just about everything they do inefficient. If they were organized differently, there's nothing preventing a giant corporation from being agile, at least on a product by product basis.
OriginalGriff wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but it all sounds like "We don't fix bugs because you don't matter to us: we have your money already".
That's it exactly, and it's a very narrow world view. Now, MS is so dominant, and they are more profitable than ever, despite claims that they are irrelevant in the Googlapple utopia we now live in, that maybe they're right to do it that way. But I can't help but think that their reputation would be much better, and their profits even more so, if they were better at addressing all of the annoying little things that piss people off on a daily basis.
He said, "Boy I'm just old and lonely, But thank you for your concern, Here's wishing you a Happy New Year." I wished him one back in return.
-
Just seen How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a lightbulb?[^] in the CP daily news. A bug fix is one kind of change to the behaviour of the product, and all changes have similar costs and go through a similar process. Any new feature which does not serve a large percentage of those users is essentially stealing valuable resources that could be spent implementing features, fixing bugs or looking for security vulnerabilities that DO impact the lives of millions of people. But isn't the problem that MS involve so many people in the process that the processes outweigh the actual work? Aren't the procedures causing the problem, instead of solving it? Or is that level of involvement inevitable when a company reaches a certain size? (I stopped working for large companies a loooong time ago as I prefer to have as much flexibility as I can get) Maybe it's just me, but it all sounds like "We don't fix bugs because you don't matter to us: we have your money already".
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
The whole process is about testing, security, localization and documentation. Those are all good things and by putting every change through that process we get better products. I can see how a bug might just not be high enough priority to spend the time to fix when they could provide something either of greater value, or the same value to more users. I also work for a much smaller company, we don't do localization, and just a little bit of documentation, security and testing and there are still bugs which I decide I won't fix because it's not effecting enough people often enough in a large enough way.
-
Just seen How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a lightbulb?[^] in the CP daily news. A bug fix is one kind of change to the behaviour of the product, and all changes have similar costs and go through a similar process. Any new feature which does not serve a large percentage of those users is essentially stealing valuable resources that could be spent implementing features, fixing bugs or looking for security vulnerabilities that DO impact the lives of millions of people. But isn't the problem that MS involve so many people in the process that the processes outweigh the actual work? Aren't the procedures causing the problem, instead of solving it? Or is that level of involvement inevitable when a company reaches a certain size? (I stopped working for large companies a loooong time ago as I prefer to have as much flexibility as I can get) Maybe it's just me, but it all sounds like "We don't fix bugs because you don't matter to us: we have your money already".
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
-
The whole process is about testing, security, localization and documentation. Those are all good things and by putting every change through that process we get better products. I can see how a bug might just not be high enough priority to spend the time to fix when they could provide something either of greater value, or the same value to more users. I also work for a much smaller company, we don't do localization, and just a little bit of documentation, security and testing and there are still bugs which I decide I won't fix because it's not effecting enough people often enough in a large enough way.
Whetever the reasons for it, their policy is starting to bite. In a market where they have to compete on a somewhat level playing field (Mobile OS) they are fairing badly. When you read reviews of the HTC HD2 and the main problem is the underlying Microsoft Operating System, it should give pause for thought. Reviewers point out that HTC's modifications to the OS go some way to addressing it's problems but ultimately can't hide the flaws in the OS. Surely someone in Redmond must be thinking..ok, let's fix this. But apparently no. Having windows in it's arsenal has been like spotting Microsoft 30 points at the start of every basketball game. Miss the boat on the Browser War? Don't worry about it. Ultimately it has lulled the company into a false sense of security about the kind of crap they can get away with. Their various attempts at a Mobile OS are the culmination of that. Another example would be Media Center. I'm a Microsoft fan, I love their Dev Tools and I think Dev Tools have always been what they are best at..but as a company they give the impression that they just don't care, and shouldn't have to care about the quality of the other software they build. So, I don't even think the problems start and stop with bug fixes. Some of their software is just inherently substandard when placed alongside the competition. -Rd
-
Just seen How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a lightbulb?[^] in the CP daily news. A bug fix is one kind of change to the behaviour of the product, and all changes have similar costs and go through a similar process. Any new feature which does not serve a large percentage of those users is essentially stealing valuable resources that could be spent implementing features, fixing bugs or looking for security vulnerabilities that DO impact the lives of millions of people. But isn't the problem that MS involve so many people in the process that the processes outweigh the actual work? Aren't the procedures causing the problem, instead of solving it? Or is that level of involvement inevitable when a company reaches a certain size? (I stopped working for large companies a loooong time ago as I prefer to have as much flexibility as I can get) Maybe it's just me, but it all sounds like "We don't fix bugs because you don't matter to us: we have your money already".
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
It may depend on the nature of a bug. if a bug causes a serious security breach, attack is on the way, I do not think it will take so many levels to fix the bug. Unfortunately, most bugs are not "show stopper". Microsoft does not really concern about it too much.
TOMZ_KV
-
Just seen How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a lightbulb?[^] in the CP daily news. A bug fix is one kind of change to the behaviour of the product, and all changes have similar costs and go through a similar process. Any new feature which does not serve a large percentage of those users is essentially stealing valuable resources that could be spent implementing features, fixing bugs or looking for security vulnerabilities that DO impact the lives of millions of people. But isn't the problem that MS involve so many people in the process that the processes outweigh the actual work? Aren't the procedures causing the problem, instead of solving it? Or is that level of involvement inevitable when a company reaches a certain size? (I stopped working for large companies a loooong time ago as I prefer to have as much flexibility as I can get) Maybe it's just me, but it all sounds like "We don't fix bugs because you don't matter to us: we have your money already".
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
OriginalGriff wrote:
MS involve so many people in the process that the processes outweigh the actual work?
Exactly! I have seen this problem everywhere with the exceptions of startup like environments. It is inevitable that larger companies/teams will become less efficient. In a recent project I am somewhat involved, there was a meeting of project managers to discuss training the end users. Which is not bad considering that the participants had no idea about what the end product will look like. They could not possibly have any idea as the conceptual design of the product did not start yet.
-
Just seen How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a lightbulb?[^] in the CP daily news. A bug fix is one kind of change to the behaviour of the product, and all changes have similar costs and go through a similar process. Any new feature which does not serve a large percentage of those users is essentially stealing valuable resources that could be spent implementing features, fixing bugs or looking for security vulnerabilities that DO impact the lives of millions of people. But isn't the problem that MS involve so many people in the process that the processes outweigh the actual work? Aren't the procedures causing the problem, instead of solving it? Or is that level of involvement inevitable when a company reaches a certain size? (I stopped working for large companies a loooong time ago as I prefer to have as much flexibility as I can get) Maybe it's just me, but it all sounds like "We don't fix bugs because you don't matter to us: we have your money already".
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
Bug fixes don't sell software, features do. No company has an incentive to fix bug unless a competitor releases a better product, cheaper. See the case study of IE6 vs. Firefox.
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. I also do Android Programming as I find it a refreshing break from the MS. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Or is that level of involvement inevitable when a company reaches a certain size?
No, it is not inevitable. Microsoft is notorious for its layers of management, which makes just about everything they do inefficient. If they were organized differently, there's nothing preventing a giant corporation from being agile, at least on a product by product basis.
OriginalGriff wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but it all sounds like "We don't fix bugs because you don't matter to us: we have your money already".
That's it exactly, and it's a very narrow world view. Now, MS is so dominant, and they are more profitable than ever, despite claims that they are irrelevant in the Googlapple utopia we now live in, that maybe they're right to do it that way. But I can't help but think that their reputation would be much better, and their profits even more so, if they were better at addressing all of the annoying little things that piss people off on a daily basis.
He said, "Boy I'm just old and lonely, But thank you for your concern, Here's wishing you a Happy New Year." I wished him one back in return.
-
Just seen How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a lightbulb?[^] in the CP daily news. A bug fix is one kind of change to the behaviour of the product, and all changes have similar costs and go through a similar process. Any new feature which does not serve a large percentage of those users is essentially stealing valuable resources that could be spent implementing features, fixing bugs or looking for security vulnerabilities that DO impact the lives of millions of people. But isn't the problem that MS involve so many people in the process that the processes outweigh the actual work? Aren't the procedures causing the problem, instead of solving it? Or is that level of involvement inevitable when a company reaches a certain size? (I stopped working for large companies a loooong time ago as I prefer to have as much flexibility as I can get) Maybe it's just me, but it all sounds like "We don't fix bugs because you don't matter to us: we have your money already".
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
Essentially and unfortunately this is the way of the large corporate lot. Years ago I worked on DEC machines and worked for a large railroad company which shall remain unnamed. We had bought a C++ compiler for a huge project I was working on and I found a memory leak, even pin pointed where it was happening and called them to see what could be done. I was told that we weren't a major player with them and that we would have to wait till the next release...2 to 2-1/2 years. Do we matter to them?, depends on how much we spend with them. The bottom line! MIke
The happiest people don't have the best of everything, they just make the best of everything they have. http://www.hq4thmarinescomm.com[^] My Site
-
Just seen How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a lightbulb?[^] in the CP daily news. A bug fix is one kind of change to the behaviour of the product, and all changes have similar costs and go through a similar process. Any new feature which does not serve a large percentage of those users is essentially stealing valuable resources that could be spent implementing features, fixing bugs or looking for security vulnerabilities that DO impact the lives of millions of people. But isn't the problem that MS involve so many people in the process that the processes outweigh the actual work? Aren't the procedures causing the problem, instead of solving it? Or is that level of involvement inevitable when a company reaches a certain size? (I stopped working for large companies a loooong time ago as I prefer to have as much flexibility as I can get) Maybe it's just me, but it all sounds like "We don't fix bugs because you don't matter to us: we have your money already".
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
The article from the developer point of view makes perfect sense. The problem as I see it is who decides which future/bug fix is worth the effort and which isn’t.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Just seen How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a lightbulb?[^] in the CP daily news. A bug fix is one kind of change to the behaviour of the product, and all changes have similar costs and go through a similar process. Any new feature which does not serve a large percentage of those users is essentially stealing valuable resources that could be spent implementing features, fixing bugs or looking for security vulnerabilities that DO impact the lives of millions of people. But isn't the problem that MS involve so many people in the process that the processes outweigh the actual work? Aren't the procedures causing the problem, instead of solving it? Or is that level of involvement inevitable when a company reaches a certain size? (I stopped working for large companies a loooong time ago as I prefer to have as much flexibility as I can get) Maybe it's just me, but it all sounds like "We don't fix bugs because you don't matter to us: we have your money already".
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
Well, thank Heaven that so many of the little things that MS produces work so well. Why not take an upbeat perspective, and list them? I'll start things off: 1. CListCtrl.
Can we spell "SIX", children?
-
Just seen How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a lightbulb?[^] in the CP daily news. A bug fix is one kind of change to the behaviour of the product, and all changes have similar costs and go through a similar process. Any new feature which does not serve a large percentage of those users is essentially stealing valuable resources that could be spent implementing features, fixing bugs or looking for security vulnerabilities that DO impact the lives of millions of people. But isn't the problem that MS involve so many people in the process that the processes outweigh the actual work? Aren't the procedures causing the problem, instead of solving it? Or is that level of involvement inevitable when a company reaches a certain size? (I stopped working for large companies a loooong time ago as I prefer to have as much flexibility as I can get) Maybe it's just me, but it all sounds like "We don't fix bugs because you don't matter to us: we have your money already".
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
It's not the process, it's the project size. The process is there to make sure people aren't the problem. In a sense, this slow down is intentional: preventing quick fixes. Microsoft apparently does have a problem that is has lost it's lean "management". However, the problem described there affects all projects of a certain size, since it needs a certain number of people, you need to prepare for people coming into or leaving the project, etc.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
Whetever the reasons for it, their policy is starting to bite. In a market where they have to compete on a somewhat level playing field (Mobile OS) they are fairing badly. When you read reviews of the HTC HD2 and the main problem is the underlying Microsoft Operating System, it should give pause for thought. Reviewers point out that HTC's modifications to the OS go some way to addressing it's problems but ultimately can't hide the flaws in the OS. Surely someone in Redmond must be thinking..ok, let's fix this. But apparently no. Having windows in it's arsenal has been like spotting Microsoft 30 points at the start of every basketball game. Miss the boat on the Browser War? Don't worry about it. Ultimately it has lulled the company into a false sense of security about the kind of crap they can get away with. Their various attempts at a Mobile OS are the culmination of that. Another example would be Media Center. I'm a Microsoft fan, I love their Dev Tools and I think Dev Tools have always been what they are best at..but as a company they give the impression that they just don't care, and shouldn't have to care about the quality of the other software they build. So, I don't even think the problems start and stop with bug fixes. Some of their software is just inherently substandard when placed alongside the competition. -Rd
I'd agree that the their Phone OS has been a disaster of epic proportions. To say they are lagging the competition in this area is probably giving them to much credit. Hopefully WP7 will start to turn that around, but it looks like they are still a step or two behind with that, but at least they've started heading in the right direction. Of course if the WP8 takes as long to get to market as WP7, they may as well shut down that division. For the most part, the rest of their products seem pretty solid, and I've definitely seen a shift to better quality and security over the last 10 years.
-
Just seen How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a lightbulb?[^] in the CP daily news. A bug fix is one kind of change to the behaviour of the product, and all changes have similar costs and go through a similar process. Any new feature which does not serve a large percentage of those users is essentially stealing valuable resources that could be spent implementing features, fixing bugs or looking for security vulnerabilities that DO impact the lives of millions of people. But isn't the problem that MS involve so many people in the process that the processes outweigh the actual work? Aren't the procedures causing the problem, instead of solving it? Or is that level of involvement inevitable when a company reaches a certain size? (I stopped working for large companies a loooong time ago as I prefer to have as much flexibility as I can get) Maybe it's just me, but it all sounds like "We don't fix bugs because you don't matter to us: we have your money already".
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
OriginalGriff wrote:
Any new feature which does not serve a large percentage of those users is essentially stealing valuable resources
Right, so why the F did they create the Ribbon? :confused: X| :mad:
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Or is that level of involvement inevitable when a company reaches a certain size?
No, it is not inevitable. Microsoft is notorious for its layers of management, which makes just about everything they do inefficient. If they were organized differently, there's nothing preventing a giant corporation from being agile, at least on a product by product basis.
OriginalGriff wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but it all sounds like "We don't fix bugs because you don't matter to us: we have your money already".
That's it exactly, and it's a very narrow world view. Now, MS is so dominant, and they are more profitable than ever, despite claims that they are irrelevant in the Googlapple utopia we now live in, that maybe they're right to do it that way. But I can't help but think that their reputation would be much better, and their profits even more so, if they were better at addressing all of the annoying little things that piss people off on a daily basis.
He said, "Boy I'm just old and lonely, But thank you for your concern, Here's wishing you a Happy New Year." I wished him one back in return.
David Kentley wrote:
Microsoft is notorious for its layers of management
Genuinely wondering which are good IT companies to compare....
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Any new feature which does not serve a large percentage of those users is essentially stealing valuable resources
Right, so why the F did they create the Ribbon? :confused: X| :mad:
They couldn't find any more bugs in the old menu system, and decided on creating some fresh ones? :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, and improve readability.
-
I'd agree that the their Phone OS has been a disaster of epic proportions. To say they are lagging the competition in this area is probably giving them to much credit. Hopefully WP7 will start to turn that around, but it looks like they are still a step or two behind with that, but at least they've started heading in the right direction. Of course if the WP8 takes as long to get to market as WP7, they may as well shut down that division. For the most part, the rest of their products seem pretty solid, and I've definitely seen a shift to better quality and security over the last 10 years.
Jeremy Hutchinson wrote:
For the most part, the rest of their products seem pretty solid, and I've definitely seen a shift to better quality and security over the last 10 years.
Yep, that's the point I'm making. It's not the bugs. Their software is generally stable enough for me. Stability isn't why I drop kick their software into the recycle bin. Off hand I can only think of one or two bugs in Windows Media Center that bothered me. Perhaps there weren't many, or perhaps I simply didn't use it long enough to come accross more. I switched relatively quickly to Media Portal (which was buggy and slow) and ultimately to XBMC which I love. Bugs are not the problem for Microsoft. They simply are not trying hard enough to build the best apps that they could build. It's ironic that the article talks of ignoring bugs in order to add features. To me they seem to be ignoring both. They throw out sub standard run of the mill applications and expect everyone to use them simply because they are there. That might have worked in the 90's when you had to drag your sorry ass down to Egghead or CompUSA, buy an alternative and install it. Those days are gone. There is simply no excuse why a company with the resources and the platform that Microsoft had couldn't dominate The Home Theatre PC market, the Tablet Market, the Phone Market, and any other market they cared to dominate. But Hey! Nokia screwed the pooch on Smart Phones too, so perhaps it's harder than it looks to transfer dominance from one area to another. I still use windows in my HTPC, but virtually all of the software that runs on it is non Microsoft, and I'm almost at the point where my next HTPC won't run Windows. I once thought all my Development would always be on Microsoft tools, but having gotten interested in Android I'm finding myself using Java, a language that I turned my back on for years. Who knows where that will lead? Mobile changes everything. Once people get comfortable using Phones and Tablets that run Android or iPhone OS, it'll be a much smaller step for them to use something other than Windows on their Laptops and PCs. -Rd
-
Just seen How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a lightbulb?[^] in the CP daily news. A bug fix is one kind of change to the behaviour of the product, and all changes have similar costs and go through a similar process. Any new feature which does not serve a large percentage of those users is essentially stealing valuable resources that could be spent implementing features, fixing bugs or looking for security vulnerabilities that DO impact the lives of millions of people. But isn't the problem that MS involve so many people in the process that the processes outweigh the actual work? Aren't the procedures causing the problem, instead of solving it? Or is that level of involvement inevitable when a company reaches a certain size? (I stopped working for large companies a loooong time ago as I prefer to have as much flexibility as I can get) Maybe it's just me, but it all sounds like "We don't fix bugs because you don't matter to us: we have your money already".
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
You've just described what's essentially wrong with most large software development houses these days. I contend that there is a huge loss of productivity when there are too many people working on a project. Examples abound in other areas such as restaurants where a few good staff in the kitchen can deliver top quality high volume where adding just a few extra people can bring service to it's knees. I wonder if anyone has ever computed the break even point before?
“If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people together to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea” - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Any new feature which does not serve a large percentage of those users is essentially stealing valuable resources
Right, so why the F did they create the Ribbon? :confused: X| :mad:
It was a pet project of the lead designer. I'm not kidding; from reading various papers I've read, the ribbon was based on a PhD thesis on UI theory and Microsoft hired this joker, but never really tested the idea in any objective way. The best UI designers I know universally find it violates many UI principles Microsoft itself established before the integrity of their UI lab was compromised. Proof to me that even Microsoft internally knew it was a bad idea is that they don't allow you to turn it off and use the traditional interface (which can almost get to using add-ons, so the base code is there.) It annoys me because I otherwise like Word 2007 (though I loathe Outlook 2007.)
