NoelC

Why does MS Marketing Still Try To Mislead Everyone?

87 posts in this topic

Here we have, since April 8, the much anticipated "Update 1" aka "Spring Update".

It said it was going to be huge - over 800 MB. It didn't download anywhere near that much - more like 200 MB in actuality. I monitored it. So clearly even the size has been "Marketeered" into fantasy, presumably to make recipients think it's more than it really is.

Microsoft built it up to be the great hope of all desktop users. They "leaked" it to get the hype going.

In reality it's virtually NO different on the desktop side at all, and very little different on the Metro/Modern side. I don't give a rat's a** about Metro/Modern apps, and couldn't care less whether the Taskbar shows over there, or any thing else about those toys. I don't see 'em, I don't use 'em. There literally is NOTHING new or better on the desktop side.

Really, there's about enough functionality in this "Update 1" to justify a download of maybe 30 MB. And it took HOW long to prepare?

When will Microsoft learn that just continuing to pile on the BS deeper and deeper is NOT what Windows users want?!?

-Noel

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replace every instance of "user" with "power user" and then your post makes sense.

Sadly, the majority of people I know that qualify as "users" (aka: "facebook, mail, A/V streaming and maybe some office" crowd) are quite happy with windows 8 and metro.

The ones being left out are the "power" users who use desktop applications to create content, something metro isn't made for. But we're not the ones who give Microsoft the bulk of their income, so is it that surprising?

Oh and my download was about 700MB. I do agree there are only few visible changes though. They probably had to rewrite a lot of code to be able to make them. If you ever coded a large project, you might know just how complicated it might be to change something when your code structure doesn't allow it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The queer thing is that what are actually "real" improvements are too intelligent to be marketed. :w00t:

Example, the newish WOF:

http://reboot.pro/topic/18345-wimlib-with-imagex-implementation/?p=183343

which might be (or become) a feature of incredible utility, was never AFAIK ever (or scarcely) mentioned.

I believe (and this is consistent with MS history) there are two sides of the company, the developers (that very often are quite good at writing software, but, understandably know very little about communication) and the designers/marketers (that know nothing about anything and just give people what they think people may want to hear).

The link between the two, which is - or should be - the management, is what lately has failed, and failed big (IMHO).

Now we have reached "pure folly" with the stupid decision that update 1 is compulsory to have future updates.

Even if, on the outcry of all the serious IT people they managed to enlarge the "window" from 1 month to almost 4:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/why-the-windows-8-1-update-probably-means-no-more-service-packs-for-windows/

this timeline still does not meet the expectations (and actual needs) of companies where security and uptime is crucial (please read as all those that are in a field where "big money" is).

Given the issues that (historically) each and every "major" critical update has introduced in MS OS's the idea of the "new" model of "continuous updates" must be for IT professional a terrible nightmare.

The "one size fits for all", that I criticized also in the good ol' times when the user OS (Windows ME) was merged with the professional OS (Windows 2000) to create the Windows XP, had some sense (though forcing upon "home" users features and complexities of the "professional" world), but now forcing upon "professional" users features (and vulnerabilities) to have a "same" OS that can be appealing to the home user is suicidal.

jaclaz

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were actually 2 updates with the same number released for the 8.1 update. KB2919355 was the large update (over 800MB) released on 8 April. Then on 17 April I noticed another KB2919355 (about 200MB) which I also installed. I think the smaller one was offered only to those people who were able to install the large update released on 8 April. According to the MS Community Forum there are still a lot of people who cannot install the large update.

In my case the update fixed all the problems I was having with my USB 3 external hard drives, so I am happy for that. Don't know what else it fixed.

LeicaIIIf

Edited by LeicaIIIf
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, the other Updates offered under KB2919355 where Updates to fix bugs which where found later (WSUS issue for example).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OT :ph34r:, but not much ;), another good recent example is Intel.

They bragged a lot at CES2014 about their Edison and how good the Quark was and how tiny (SD card size) the whole thingy was, and in less than three months later:

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2014/03/31/intel-edison-atom/1

they announced that everything is OK, but an Atom will be used instead, and the thingy will be bigger in size.

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that its M$ misleading people, but companies in general. People will do anything to get an extra couple bucks.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but there used to be substance in addition to the Marketing BS. Now it's only hype left.

Who forgot that someone actually has to BUILD the better mousetrap?

-Noel

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is it just me

or they have more problems with this so called updates than with service pack-ing ? :)

is it just me

or everything that they plan, turns into pile of shit ?

Edited by vinifera
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is it just me

or they have more problems with this so called updates than with service pack-ing ? :)

is it just me

or everything that they plan, turns into pile of s*** ?

I thought windows 8.1 was a service pack originally. I thought really wrong. No its not just you. Every M$ thing latey is just a pig pile of... well you know.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nope, these are more feature packs as they change the shell and functionality of OS

this was never been done in previous Win-OS-es, except people do b***h about XP SP2 which actually wasn't feature pack, it just reactivated things that were deactivated

Edited by vinifera
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just you. Microsoft seems to be populated by a bunch of noobs who prefer to do things a different way than the ways that worked in the past just because it's different.

I can't complain too much though... My current setup is perfectly stable and I don't really have any reductions in functionality vs. Win 7. I used hell out of it today doing insanely heavy software development and debugging and had nary a system hiccup. It's not any better than Win 7, though - just about the same. You'd think things would have improved in 5 years.

Only thing is that some kinds of disk I/O are slower in Win 8.1, but I have an insanely fast I/O subsystem so it's not noticeable in any real way except in comparative benchmarking/testing.

-Noel

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My current setup ...

Sure :).

But you have to ask yourself (and post here the answers) these questions:

  1. How much did it take in research, and applying tweaks, and *what not* to get to the current satisfying result?
  2. How much did it take in 2006 (or so) to have Vista :ph34r: run *as smooth* as the previous XP? <- Warning, this is a tricky question ;)
  3. How much did it take in 2009 (or so) to have Seven run better/smoother than Vista and/or as smooth as (or better/smoother than) the previous XP?

Please add some considerations on how in the period between 2006 and 2014 the actual hardware has evolved and the possible effects of this evolution on performance.... :whistle:

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said here and elsewhere that the effort it takes to make Windows 8 a productive system is unprecedented.

I used to set up engineering workstations on Windows since the beginning and we had people doing things you'd not think possible. XP was good though it also advanced the move toward fluff. Vista actually improved on XP - after the hardware and drivers caught up with its thirst for resources. It took enough planning and sequencing and detailed knowledge to get Windows 7 tweaked/tuned up that I actually wrote a book on it. I updated the book for WIndows 8 and yes, it got a good bit thicker.

A lot of folks have rose-colored memories of the great XP, but that system still did require regular reboots to keep working properly, and it wasn't as professional as we expect our current systems to be. It could easily lose its way in the middle of a big copy. It was great for its day but it is nothing special by today's standards. I still boot it up in a VM fairly often, and it always surprises me how clunky it really is.

Thing is, it's possible for a computer operating system to be very, very good nowadays. It's really not the time for Microsoft (or anyone) to be turning away from advancing the state of the art in the greedy pursuit of quick money. We will not reach a "Star Trek" utopian future if we stop trying to improve computing.

-Noel

Edited by NoelC
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.