Internet's effect on Quality of software?

dragon · 10-09-2008, 16:48

Just wandering if People here think that the fact that with Broadband becoming more popular and an ever increasing number of people having access to the internet whether its causing an overall decrease in the quality of (Mostly commercial) software?

It may be down to the increasing complexity of modern software but it seems to me that in the days when most people didn't have internet access that software seemed to be more reliable, probably because if it didn't work it wasn't all that easy to get a patch out to fix it.

Thesedays the Mentality seems to be release it now so we can start making money off it and then we'll fix it later. It's amazing that some software often needs huge patches (perticullarly games) within weeks of its release.

Surely if it had that many problems it wasn't ready to be let out of beta.

**Chris** · 10-09-2008, 16:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragon

Just wandering if People here think that the fact that with Broadband becoming more popular and an ever increasing number of people having access to the internet whether its causing an overall decrease in the quality of (Mostly commercial) software?

It may be down to the increasing complexity of modern software but it seems to me that in the days when most people didn't have internet access that software seemed to be more reliable, probably because if it didn't work it wasn't all that easy to get a patch out to fix it.

Thesedays the Mentality seems to be release it now so we can start making money off it and then we'll fix it later. It's amazing that some software often needs huge patches (perticullarly games) within weeks of its release.

Surely if it had that many problems it wasn't ready to be let out of beta.

It wasn't the Internet that popularised that approach. It was a certain Mr Bill Gates.

dev · 10-09-2008, 16:51

thats one way to look at it. The other is that you only know of the bugs because of the internet. Older software could just have as many bugs and you never see any of them because you didn't experience them yourself, now they're published on the net, people spread the news about them and you find out about them that way.

Also, software has become much bigger and more complex, things like multi-core CPUs add a whole new dimension to bugs being introduced, it's pretty hard to make something commerical and 100% bug free

10-09-2008, 16:55

Well as it happens a simple Google of early MAc updates somes with some very interesting results. Macs First OS (I think) was simply called System 1 which had a little folder creation error which required the release of system 1.1 as early as 1984
There is quite a list of such patches under Mac

http://applemuseum.bott.org/sections/os.html

Quote:

System 1.0, Finder 1.0
Released: January 24, 1984 | Size: 216k | Download
Screenshots: Desktop, Desktop Accessories, Notepad, Scrapbook, Menus
Hard to believe that the OS that started a computer revolution was only 216k, including the 42k Finder. This was the combined effort of the geniuses at Apple Computer in the early '80s. The original Mac OS was simple and easy to use, a pleasant surprise to computer users who tried it for the first time. The Finder is very familiar, but some of the menu options are unrecognizable. The desktop accessories, which included Calculator, Alarm Clock, Puzzle, Key Caps, Control Panel, Notepad, and Scrapbook were there just like today, under the Apple menu. These were all installed in the System Folder, which also harbored the fonts. The entire System was shipped on a 400k disk with the first Mac 128k models, and also included a separate tutorial disk that taught you how to use the mouse (a device alien to most all users at the time) called Mousing Around, which later became Mac Basics. Even though it was a breakthrough in interface design, System 1.0 also had many headaches and inconsistencies. Most apparent was the copying of disks, which would take up to 20 minutes and countless disk swaps (partly due to the Mac's limited memory). Rebuilding the desktop back then removed all your folders, putting all files at the root level of your disk. Also, the tutorial was incompatible with System 1.0, and a patched version of the System had to be included with the tutorial disk to avoid crashing. You also could not create a new folder. Instead, an folder named "Empty Folder" always existed on the root level of any Mac-formatted disk. When you renamed it, a new "Empty Folder" would appear. These problems caused the prompt release of System 1.1.

Windows did not hit the market till 1985

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows

guess its not just Bill Gates to blame after all

dragon · 10-09-2008, 16:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by dev

thats one way to look at it. The other is that you only know of the bugs because of the internet. Older software could just have as many bugs and you never see any of them because you didn't experience them yourself, now they're published on the net, people spread the news about them and you find out about them that way.

Also, software has become much bigger and more complex, things like multi-core CPUs add a whole new dimension to bugs being introduced, it's pretty hard to make something commerical and 100% bug free

I don't expect 100% bug free, never going to happen but I do wander when shortly after release you get patches in the several Hundred MB - GB reigon

10-09-2008, 17:02

Software is tested by for example 1000 beta testers whos set up finds so many problems that are fixed . Upon release the software then becomes available to hundreds of thousands of people with different set ups thus finding new enviroments to work in and thus finding new different problems.

dragon · 10-09-2008, 17:06

what about console games, where every system is identical pretty much

dev · 10-09-2008, 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragon

I don't expect 100% bug free, never going to happen but I do wander when shortly after release you get patches in the several Hundred MB - GB reigon

that's more down to patching technique, they have to be 99% sure that the patch will update *everything* that needs to be updated and not screw up other things

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragon

what about console games, where every system is identical pretty much

out of thousands of people there'll be a handful that will do something that the hundreds of beta testers didnt do and trigger a sequence of events that causes a problem

**Maggy** · 10-09-2008, 17:26

So what are one's rights when it comes to software that should work on your system according to the specs given but doesn't?Can you demand your money back?

**Chris** · 10-09-2008, 17:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by David F

Well as it happens a simple Google of early MAc updates somes with some very interesting results. Macs First OS (I think) was simply called System 1 which had a little folder creation error which required the release of system 1.1 as early as 1984
There is quite a list of such patches under Mac

http://applemuseum.bott.org/sections/os.html

Windows did not hit the market till 1985

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows

guess its not just Bill Gates to blame after all

You're comparing apples with oranges there. Windows 1.0 was not an operating system, it was an extension for MS-DOS, which was pretty flawed itself back in 1985. Meanwhile Mac OS 'System 1' was a full GUI-based operating system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great God Wikipedia, for he is Lord

The first independent version of Microsoft Windows, version 1.0, released on November 20, 1985, lacked a degree of functionality and achieved little popularity. It was originally going to be called Interface Manager, but Rowland Hanson, the head of marketing at Microsoft, convinced the company that the name Windows would be more appealing to consumers. Windows 1.0 was not a complete operating system, but rather extended MS-DOS, and shared the latter's inherent flaws and problems.

(Emphasis added by me).

Now, to the issue of whose fault it is for creating the culture of 'release first, bug-fix later'.

You don't prove that Apple created this issue simply by showing that they were better than Microsoft at creating a GUI-based OS and getting it to market years before MS did. You don't prove it by showing that System 1 had bugs in it either. The very word 'bug' is used because the concept dates back to the earliest computers, when real insects attracted to the hot components could cause short circuits, and therefore system crashes. Neither MS nor Apple created the concept of a bug.

But the OP wasn't asking who made the first bugs. He asked what was responsible for an apparent move from largely (though not exclusively) right-first-time software, to products where bugs and regular patches are apparently the accepted norm.

I would say Bill Gates and his crew bear a great degree of responsibility for this because of the ubiquity of Windows on modern PC desktops - if it were Apple that was constantly releasing famously buggy software, it would only ever be a footnote in the news because Apple computers, and therefore Apple's OS, are not nearly so widely used.

Last word to David Bradley of IBM: "I may have invented Control-Alt-Delete, but Bill Gates made it famous".

---------- Post added at 16:32 ---------- Previous post was at 16:31 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

So what are one's rights when it comes to software that should work on your system according to the specs given but doesn't?Can you demand your money back?

Yes. The Sale of Goods Act (as amended) applies to computer software as much as anything else. If it is not fit for its advertised purpose, you are entitled to a full refund - from the shop that sold you the software, incidentally, not the manufacturer.