Edge on 7
-
See title--I alluded to this last week. Edge 109 was supposed to be the last version of Edge to run on Windows 7. So yesterday was Patch Tuesday, and I was a bit surprised to see Edge (now 110) still being offered by Windows Update on my Win7 VM as part of yesterday's new releases. I let it download...and fails to install - no surprise. The installer probably has a dependency check and at least *it* does the right thing. But why is it showing up there at all, if it's been known and planned and announced to such fanfare? You'd think this is one of the first things they would've made sure works as expected...It should be a simple exercise for the people in charge of putting together patches who should have a high level of competency for this sort of thing by now. Or do they let the interns manage the patches? When MS talks a big game about AI and ChatGPT and all that nonsense I never really believed in, this is exactly the example I always come back to - until they can sort out how to do basic things like patching correctly, they shouldn't even try to pretend they have the know-how to make a so-called AI. Solve the easy things first. Or maybe they can use their fancy AI to sort it out for them. Would you trust it to do a better job than the Windows Updates team, and let it loose and in charge of patching your fleet of machines?
-
See title--I alluded to this last week. Edge 109 was supposed to be the last version of Edge to run on Windows 7. So yesterday was Patch Tuesday, and I was a bit surprised to see Edge (now 110) still being offered by Windows Update on my Win7 VM as part of yesterday's new releases. I let it download...and fails to install - no surprise. The installer probably has a dependency check and at least *it* does the right thing. But why is it showing up there at all, if it's been known and planned and announced to such fanfare? You'd think this is one of the first things they would've made sure works as expected...It should be a simple exercise for the people in charge of putting together patches who should have a high level of competency for this sort of thing by now. Or do they let the interns manage the patches? When MS talks a big game about AI and ChatGPT and all that nonsense I never really believed in, this is exactly the example I always come back to - until they can sort out how to do basic things like patching correctly, they shouldn't even try to pretend they have the know-how to make a so-called AI. Solve the easy things first. Or maybe they can use their fancy AI to sort it out for them. Would you trust it to do a better job than the Windows Updates team, and let it loose and in charge of patching your fleet of machines?
We don't even trust the Windows Update team. Every update is tested before releasing it to the fleet.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
- Thomas SowellA day can really slip by when you're deliberately avoiding what you're supposed to do.
- Bill Watterson (Calvin & Hobbes) -
See title--I alluded to this last week. Edge 109 was supposed to be the last version of Edge to run on Windows 7. So yesterday was Patch Tuesday, and I was a bit surprised to see Edge (now 110) still being offered by Windows Update on my Win7 VM as part of yesterday's new releases. I let it download...and fails to install - no surprise. The installer probably has a dependency check and at least *it* does the right thing. But why is it showing up there at all, if it's been known and planned and announced to such fanfare? You'd think this is one of the first things they would've made sure works as expected...It should be a simple exercise for the people in charge of putting together patches who should have a high level of competency for this sort of thing by now. Or do they let the interns manage the patches? When MS talks a big game about AI and ChatGPT and all that nonsense I never really believed in, this is exactly the example I always come back to - until they can sort out how to do basic things like patching correctly, they shouldn't even try to pretend they have the know-how to make a so-called AI. Solve the easy things first. Or maybe they can use their fancy AI to sort it out for them. Would you trust it to do a better job than the Windows Updates team, and let it loose and in charge of patching your fleet of machines?
The reality is that both MS and Apple are not the companies we grew up with anymore. In some ways that's good, like with MS embracing Linux. But, the minds behind them both are gone. What's left is the name. Times change.
Jeremy Falcon
-
See title--I alluded to this last week. Edge 109 was supposed to be the last version of Edge to run on Windows 7. So yesterday was Patch Tuesday, and I was a bit surprised to see Edge (now 110) still being offered by Windows Update on my Win7 VM as part of yesterday's new releases. I let it download...and fails to install - no surprise. The installer probably has a dependency check and at least *it* does the right thing. But why is it showing up there at all, if it's been known and planned and announced to such fanfare? You'd think this is one of the first things they would've made sure works as expected...It should be a simple exercise for the people in charge of putting together patches who should have a high level of competency for this sort of thing by now. Or do they let the interns manage the patches? When MS talks a big game about AI and ChatGPT and all that nonsense I never really believed in, this is exactly the example I always come back to - until they can sort out how to do basic things like patching correctly, they shouldn't even try to pretend they have the know-how to make a so-called AI. Solve the easy things first. Or maybe they can use their fancy AI to sort it out for them. Would you trust it to do a better job than the Windows Updates team, and let it loose and in charge of patching your fleet of machines?
dandy72 wrote:
It should be a simple exercise for the people in charge of putting together patches who should have a high level of competency for this sort of thing by now. Or do they let the interns manage the patches?
Must be nice to work for companies where that is easy to do. Every company I have worked for, even when projects are not that large, releases are always a nail biter. But maybe that is just because I was always the one that had to solve the problems when they showed up.
dandy72 wrote:
until they can sort out how to do basic things like patching correctly, they shouldn't even try to pretend they have the know-how to make a so-called AI. Solve the easy things first.
Because everyone else has already solved that?
-
dandy72 wrote:
It should be a simple exercise for the people in charge of putting together patches who should have a high level of competency for this sort of thing by now. Or do they let the interns manage the patches?
Must be nice to work for companies where that is easy to do. Every company I have worked for, even when projects are not that large, releases are always a nail biter. But maybe that is just because I was always the one that had to solve the problems when they showed up.
dandy72 wrote:
until they can sort out how to do basic things like patching correctly, they shouldn't even try to pretend they have the know-how to make a so-called AI. Solve the easy things first.
Because everyone else has already solved that?
Good point. Updating something that unknown users can have frigged about with in unknown ways is, um, far from easy. Those who think it is should try it themselves.
-
dandy72 wrote:
It should be a simple exercise for the people in charge of putting together patches who should have a high level of competency for this sort of thing by now. Or do they let the interns manage the patches?
Must be nice to work for companies where that is easy to do. Every company I have worked for, even when projects are not that large, releases are always a nail biter. But maybe that is just because I was always the one that had to solve the problems when they showed up.
dandy72 wrote:
until they can sort out how to do basic things like patching correctly, they shouldn't even try to pretend they have the know-how to make a so-called AI. Solve the easy things first.
Because everyone else has already solved that?
My point was, they've been doing this for decades. Why's the process so still broken after all this time? Or maybe I was still giving them too much credit when I wrote:
dandy72 wrote:
people [...] who should have a high level of competency for this sort of thing by now
-
My point was, they've been doing this for decades. Why's the process so still broken after all this time? Or maybe I was still giving them too much credit when I wrote:
dandy72 wrote:
people [...] who should have a high level of competency for this sort of thing by now
dandy72 wrote:
Why's the process so still broken after all this time?
Because they don't deliver process. They deliver software. Additionally it is a very complex product. Which means the there are very many steps in the process all of which can only be managed by humans. Which are not and never will be perfect.
-
dandy72 wrote:
Why's the process so still broken after all this time?
Because they don't deliver process. They deliver software. Additionally it is a very complex product. Which means the there are very many steps in the process all of which can only be managed by humans. Which are not and never will be perfect.
jschell wrote:
Because they don't deliver process. They deliver software.
But you'd think there was a process in place to deliver said software. The Windows Update facility has existed for what, at least 20 years? I agree patching isn't something trivial for most people, especially for such a complex piece of software as Windows. Mind-bogglingly complex; you couldn't pay me enough money to take on that job. But my point, again, was, is there no-one in that department that has worked there long enough to have figured out the process (there's that word again) so the whole thing (or at least most of it) can be streamlined and just gets repeated every second Tuesday of every month?
-
jschell wrote:
Because they don't deliver process. They deliver software.
But you'd think there was a process in place to deliver said software. The Windows Update facility has existed for what, at least 20 years? I agree patching isn't something trivial for most people, especially for such a complex piece of software as Windows. Mind-bogglingly complex; you couldn't pay me enough money to take on that job. But my point, again, was, is there no-one in that department that has worked there long enough to have figured out the process (there's that word again) so the whole thing (or at least most of it) can be streamlined and just gets repeated every second Tuesday of every month?
Not sure what you are suggesting at this point. The updates are delivered automatically. The OP was about Edge being in the latest update. So the following two parts, at a minimum, exist 1. Reporting (english and other language text) that Edge would not be in it. 2. The code where it was still there. So in terms of process some person (not code) decided it would no longer be there. Then some person (step 1) reported that. And very likely a different person then the one above. Then some other person (definitely a different person) might have either included it or forgot to exclude it. So it showed up. And realistically I bet there are more steps in the above process in which humans, not software, are involved and which software would never be involved. Why do I say 'might' above? Because maybe the first person that I mentioned above changed their mind but the second person didn't get the notice. Or some other person not even mentioned above told the third person to put it in regardless.