Absolutely Perfect Software
-
The same goes for most software though, interfaces are updated to keep them fresh and minor improvements are made along with a few new features. The only real difference is that you can always count on the graphics in games improving, where as desktop software is often just a sideways move to make it more fashionable.
I think that Microsoft's message that XP was a '13 year old', 'Operating System' is marketing genius - they made 'User Interface' synonymous with 'Operating system' in the minds of the public, but it's just snake oil. The big Operating System change was / is going from 32 bit to 64 bit. The rest is menus and utility programs, and some new APIs. XP isn't really old, and Windows 8 isn't all new, just a way for their Marketing people to say 'Buy this New Thing'.
-
Thinking about my earlier post about software still running, unchanged, several years later has made me realise that we live today in a world where everyone assumes that without a constant stream of patches and corrections that software will somehow just stop doing it's job properly. XP comes to mind. I am using it on a couple of PCs at home I using as file servers. They work fine; they have a dozen external drives attached to each one and they backup to each other every night and serve video, music, ebook, install and other files as required with no fuss and no error. They no longer connect to the internet for updates and have not yet exploded! I was going to change them to either Windows 7 or Windows Server 2003 but I decided I didn't need to. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have several old, utility programs that still work fine, some of them have copyright notices that start "19..." never mind "200...". I don't need to update them, they still just work. Do you have a problem with a culture of constant update where updates are largely unnecessary and probably driven entirely by marketing? Windows 8 comes to mind, along with seemingly endless versions of iPhones, etc. Note: The title of this post may be a little exaggerated, but you get the idea, I hope.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
Forogar wrote:
Do you have a problem with a culture of constant update where updates are largely unnecessary and probably driven entirely by marketing
Yes. Yes I do. Not limited to software/technology. The lack of critical/analytical thinking drives me nuts sometimes. Is the new product demonstrably better than the old? If not, why did someone make the new (other than the reason given by Forogar).
-
Thinking about my earlier post about software still running, unchanged, several years later has made me realise that we live today in a world where everyone assumes that without a constant stream of patches and corrections that software will somehow just stop doing it's job properly. XP comes to mind. I am using it on a couple of PCs at home I using as file servers. They work fine; they have a dozen external drives attached to each one and they backup to each other every night and serve video, music, ebook, install and other files as required with no fuss and no error. They no longer connect to the internet for updates and have not yet exploded! I was going to change them to either Windows 7 or Windows Server 2003 but I decided I didn't need to. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have several old, utility programs that still work fine, some of them have copyright notices that start "19..." never mind "200...". I don't need to update them, they still just work. Do you have a problem with a culture of constant update where updates are largely unnecessary and probably driven entirely by marketing? Windows 8 comes to mind, along with seemingly endless versions of iPhones, etc. Note: The title of this post may be a little exaggerated, but you get the idea, I hope.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
My car has software (well, technically firmware). It's 14 years old. It hasn't needed a constant stream of updates to keep functioning.
Forogar wrote:
without a constant stream of patches and corrections that software will somehow just stop doing it's job properly
That's exactly my definition of broken and buggy software. I find it a never ending source of amusement that on smart phones, if the software isn't broken and buggy and in constant need of updates, its perceived as bad.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
Thinking about my earlier post about software still running, unchanged, several years later has made me realise that we live today in a world where everyone assumes that without a constant stream of patches and corrections that software will somehow just stop doing it's job properly. XP comes to mind. I am using it on a couple of PCs at home I using as file servers. They work fine; they have a dozen external drives attached to each one and they backup to each other every night and serve video, music, ebook, install and other files as required with no fuss and no error. They no longer connect to the internet for updates and have not yet exploded! I was going to change them to either Windows 7 or Windows Server 2003 but I decided I didn't need to. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have several old, utility programs that still work fine, some of them have copyright notices that start "19..." never mind "200...". I don't need to update them, they still just work. Do you have a problem with a culture of constant update where updates are largely unnecessary and probably driven entirely by marketing? Windows 8 comes to mind, along with seemingly endless versions of iPhones, etc. Note: The title of this post may be a little exaggerated, but you get the idea, I hope.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
There is no such thing as absolutely perfect software. Absolutely perfect software is only achievable with an infinite amount of time, money, and resources which don't exist in the real world. All one can hope for is that a good testing cycle/philosophy statistically reduces the chances of the one or more paths through the software are not exercised that were not covered during the testing phase.
-
Thinking about my earlier post about software still running, unchanged, several years later has made me realise that we live today in a world where everyone assumes that without a constant stream of patches and corrections that software will somehow just stop doing it's job properly. XP comes to mind. I am using it on a couple of PCs at home I using as file servers. They work fine; they have a dozen external drives attached to each one and they backup to each other every night and serve video, music, ebook, install and other files as required with no fuss and no error. They no longer connect to the internet for updates and have not yet exploded! I was going to change them to either Windows 7 or Windows Server 2003 but I decided I didn't need to. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have several old, utility programs that still work fine, some of them have copyright notices that start "19..." never mind "200...". I don't need to update them, they still just work. Do you have a problem with a culture of constant update where updates are largely unnecessary and probably driven entirely by marketing? Windows 8 comes to mind, along with seemingly endless versions of iPhones, etc. Note: The title of this post may be a little exaggerated, but you get the idea, I hope.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
It's one type of programmed obsolescence. Companies continue to slowly develop features for their products so the older versions become obsolete. That involves software and hardware. It's like light bulbs that are not made to last long. Now, how would I go without that new visual feature of the next game of my favorite series that is only supported on a DirectX version in Windows 8? :~
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
-
Thinking about my earlier post about software still running, unchanged, several years later has made me realise that we live today in a world where everyone assumes that without a constant stream of patches and corrections that software will somehow just stop doing it's job properly. XP comes to mind. I am using it on a couple of PCs at home I using as file servers. They work fine; they have a dozen external drives attached to each one and they backup to each other every night and serve video, music, ebook, install and other files as required with no fuss and no error. They no longer connect to the internet for updates and have not yet exploded! I was going to change them to either Windows 7 or Windows Server 2003 but I decided I didn't need to. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have several old, utility programs that still work fine, some of them have copyright notices that start "19..." never mind "200...". I don't need to update them, they still just work. Do you have a problem with a culture of constant update where updates are largely unnecessary and probably driven entirely by marketing? Windows 8 comes to mind, along with seemingly endless versions of iPhones, etc. Note: The title of this post may be a little exaggerated, but you get the idea, I hope.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
Let's talk about Microsoft Office 2003...
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I still see a lot of POS systems out there that are DOS based. Reason being? They are stable They get the Job done They are small Their shortcuts once learned make sense, and make data entry easy There really are a lot of legacy applications that still have fairly wide adoption because of their original well thought our design, and the fact that the role they fulfill hasn't changed over the years. [edit] Woohoo, this is my 1000 point in Code Project! [edit]
I've seen two in the last month that were obviously written in Pascal. One can assume that they weren't broke.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
When Windows XP was released back in 2001, it was far from being perfect, it underwent a massive change with Service Pack 2 until it really remained pretty much unchanged for the rest of its lifetime. I think the difference today is that the whole bugfixing/update process has accelerated, and I really believe that it has become more of a culture rather than a necessity. Maybe not the best example, but I remember how my parents owned this really massive, made in GDR 1970 bedroom cupboard for about thirty years until it got replaced (not because it was broken but it was too big) and that was moved, which means disassembled at the old place and reassembled at the new, many times without really showing any signs of age or damage. Now when I look at the quality of the wood and how much you have to pay for these cupboards at IKEA today, it's no comparison. You can dismantle these things one, maybe two times until the boltings start to get slack. But it's not really a surprise when you think about it. Things like the GDR-made cupboard were "made to last forever", but that's not true anymore. It's all about consumption today, and if it weren't for economical reasons, people wouldn't be encouraged to replace their fully functioning mobile phones etc. after a year or two max. And things like planned obsolescence come into play, too. Think of lightbulbs and nylon tights. Lightbulbs are constructed to last about 1000 hours until they fail, and nylon tights are also constructed to fail - they have to be because the original nylon was so durable that women wouldn't buy stockings so often like they have to do ever since. And there are more examples, predetermined breaking points in headphone or charger cables... engineers are forced to build products that eventually fail although they got the brains to come up with something that would last beyond comparison, and that's the real scandal. Coming back to software updates, I sometimes got the impression that people seem to be never happy with a specific version of a program these days. As soon as they got the latest version installed, they start to yearn for v.Next, and they want to see it delivered today rather than tomorrow. The heart beats higher when a new update is available from the app store, and although you can't really tell what's changed between the old and the new version all too often, they feel relief because the next new update has finally arrived.
A lot of 'they don't build them like that anymore' comes from survivor bias. Cheap junk knock-down furniture was made in the 1960's and 1970's too, it's chipped plastic laminate and wobbly, spindly legs are mostly in landfills now, out of sight.
-
I still see a lot of POS systems out there that are DOS based. Reason being? They are stable They get the Job done They are small Their shortcuts once learned make sense, and make data entry easy There really are a lot of legacy applications that still have fairly wide adoption because of their original well thought our design, and the fact that the role they fulfill hasn't changed over the years. [edit] Woohoo, this is my 1000 point in Code Project! [edit]
-
Let's talk about Microsoft Office 2003...
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!