Nope, wasn't me. Must be some other Zippy you're thinking of.
(Oh and RIP Geoffrey from a few weeks ago as well...)
The problems with the Windows 10 October 2018 Update just keep on rolling in as users complain of borked zip file extraction, broken fonts and iffy brightness controls. The infamous file deletion bug and blue screen reports have drowned out other issues somewhat. So, allow us to present a round-up that could have been titled " …
It is a bit of a disgrace. How do they manage to introduce new bugs into something that's been in windows as long as zip file handling? For a problem to have appeared there, there must have been a change. What was the change that caused that problem?
Windows has always been known for its propensity to dick people around. Microsoft is now getting a reputation for making over-complicated, hard to use and unreliable software. The biggest gripe of all is the updates.
To be fair, it does depend on what I'm doing, but I sometimes use inbuilt windows zip. Why? Because I can double click into the file from within windows explorer, if all I am after is viewing a log file within a zip quickly, then it makes more sense to reach that in a couple of clicks rather than bothering to unzip with a different product.
Other than that though, I'll freely admit that built in functionality for handling zip archives sucks balls.
People who use the right tool for the right job. I use tar.gz if transferring data between *nix machines, unless bandwidth is crap, then I use tar.bz as the CPU expense [hopefully] is worth the transfer time saving. Zip is perfect when interoperability is paramount, as I know it's supported on pretty much every OS.
Windows ZIP is only really suitable for a small number of medium size files.
If it's large files in the ZIP, it sucks, it's lots of very small files in the ZIP, it really sucks. It's sucked badly since the Windows 7 days, and it's continued to suck in Windows 8, Windows 8.1 and now Windows 8.2 (which some idiots that fall for rebranding stunts call Windows 10)
has long been a Microsoft philosophy. It served it well in the early days as it meant that it got a product to market before the competition. The bugs could be fixed in a later release. Competitors who, later, shipped something with fewer bugs didn't get the sales as the Microsoft offering was seen as 'the standard'.
Others have also done this sort of thing. In some ways: better something with holes than nothing at all.
But today Microsoft should not need to do this, it is not scrabbling for market share in the same way. They have the time and resources to do proper QA regression testing - but don't seem to want to.
If you insist on all bugs being fixed, the first "bug free" release is probably going to take about three years. Later releases may be a bit faster -- two years. Maybe even eighteen months. In the long run, release time will depend on the longest chain of fix that needs a fix that needs a fix ... plus a lot of overhead. Might be doable. Might even be acceptable. But it's going to require massive changes in attitudes and approaches at every level.
Decidedly NOT agile.
"has long been a Microsoft philosophy. It served it well in the early days as it meant that it got a product to market before the competition. "
Equally important I think was that early MS OS products were quite small by modern standards. IIRC, WFWG3.11 -- which was quite usable -- shipped on four 1.44mb floppies plus another three floppies(?) for MSDOS 6.22(?). Testing that for major bugs was something that could probably be done by a small team in communication with each other and the developers in a few weeks. Not so in 2018.
Even Windows 95 -- which was buggy as a tropical swamp -- only needed 20 odd floppies. It actually ran pretty well about 25 service packs later.
But they won't be happy when Microsoft crashes.
Alas, I think that's unwarranted optimism. There's no sign yet that either the market for Microsoft products, or the stock markets, care at all about these product failures. I think Microsoft is going to get away with shipping substandard crap and annoying a large fraction of its user base for decades to come.
What large software vendor has ever been brought down by poor quality? Financial blunders, yes; out-competed by some Flavor of the Week startup, yes. I can't think of one that was seriously hurt simply by peddling rubbish. Once you reach a certain size, you become entrenched, and the user base will complain but continue to take it.
for me it was NT4 that drove me to linux. I liked win95 for a bit, got a NT 3.51 server cd from a friend at MS back in the day, liked that(more stable). NT4 was neat though I guess moving more shit into the kernel made it less stable. Quite a few crashes and seemingly have to reinstall every 6-12 months made me jump to Linux (Slackware 3.x) then Debian 2.0.
I still have Win7 at home and even an XP box(really games though I don't play much games). My main laptop dual boots to win7 but doesn't spend more than a dozen or so hours per year in win7 on average. I have a Win7 VM for work stuff that works fine.
So glad I never jumped on win10. I never did see the popups from MS offering free upgrades to win10. Win7 (and win2k8/r2 for the few windows servers I have) do what I need. win2k12 was quite annoying(have a half dozen of those systems).
Main interface for me though has been linux since about 1998.
Went OSX in 2001 and have been fighting the schadenfreude ever since.*
Three weeks into a major release and still problems, well done M$.
I avoid any MS product that I can. I have used Skype to stay in touch with friends but have a feeling that will end when I try the enforced new version.
* - unsuccessfully :) , but in this case I am starting to feel sorry for the poor sods stuck with it.
Reports of the bug rapidly spread and we at Vulture Central were able to recreate it on our installation. It's a pretty nasty issue – a user could copy a file out of an archive, assume the copy was successful and then delete the zip file. However, if a file with the same name already exists, Windows 10 would have silently done... nothing. Oops.
KDE Dolphin, is that you???
any way we can sue M$ under the consumer rights act?
Eg... I go out and buy a new PC loaded with win 10, 2 weeks later a m$ update borks and bricks the thing.
Surely then the PC becomes defective goods and must be replaced or refunded by the supplier
But would we (being us consumers) put up with this behaviour from any other customer/business goods supplier? Oh I've just got a new car/tv/washing machine/toaster....... after 2 weeks it doesn't work because the manufacturer 'updated' the software ...
There’s probably an arbitration clause in the license agreement. Microsoft using their users as alpha testers and ignoring significant documented bugs as low impact is abominable.
I had 8 machines in my shop that 1803 bricked and Microsoft’s fix was a wipe and reload since the rollback didn’t work. When I asked the Microsoft rep how I was supposed to explain to the customer that their update broke their computer and that I had to charge them to fix it. His response was that they would fix it for free, but the customer needed another computer and a couple of flash drives. When I asked the rep if he thought that working over the phone with someone who can barely operate their computer and him having a pretty heavy accent if it was going to end well? He kinda hemmed and hawed and said maybe.
I guess I should look at this as a blessing in disguise. Microsoft can keep pushing out sh*tty code and I’ll keep making money rebuilding the computers their “keep it fresh” updates bork.
"But would we (being us consumers) put up with this behaviour from any other customer/business goods supplier? Oh I've just got a new car/tv/washing machine/toaster....... after 2 weeks it doesn't work because the manufacturer 'updated' the software …"
If it was supplied configured so that it would apply updates and one of the updates broke it then take it back to the shop. They sold you something unfit for purpose.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018