Microsoft fixing Windows 10 CU gaming performance issues

[Corky34]

Citations and I'll start listening. Clear evidence that these issues are caused by Microsoft's code and not faulty hardware/poorly written drivers/third party software and I'll doff my cap to you. "I don't think" isn't an argument.

I'm not having an argument, i was stating an opinion, i just wish i could say the same for you as it's starting to become apparent that you do, from putting words into my mouth too your suggestion that I'm being naive it's clear that no matter what i say you'll use that as a form of attack, you've even laid the ground work for that by saying you want "Clear evidence that these issues are caused by Microsoft's code and not faulty hardware/poorly written drivers/third party software", you may say I'm being a shade naive but I'm not gullible enough to follow you down that rabbit hole.

EDIT: Although just to prove a point here are some links to articles from the most pro Microsoft shill out there, Mr Thurrott.
Microsoft Delivers Yet Another Broken Windows 10 Update.
Microsoft Has Broken Millions Of Webcams With Windows 10 Anniversary Update
Microsoft Fixes Windows Hello Issue in Surface Pro 4.
Microsoft Releases Surface Pro 3 Firmware Update to Address Battery Issues.

[scaryjim]

I'm not having an argument, i was stating an opinion, i just wish i could say the same for you as it's starting to become apparent that you do ...

I don't want an argument, I'm merely questioning an assertion you made that I don't think is true. You said:

this new way of doing Windows is awful in terms of quality control

and

when comparing this new way of doing Windows with the old way it seems quality has taken a back seat.

Those aren't opinions. You're claiming facts. You're saying the quality control of Windows 10 updates is "awful". You're saying that quality "has taken a back seat". Tacking "in my opinion" onto the end of those statements doesn't magically make them immune from question and debate. Stating an "opinion" that you're then not willing to defend is basically just straight-up trolling.

I've yet to see anything that indicates the quality of Windows 10 updates is worse than in previous versions*. I'm happy to test evidence against that, but since this isn't my pet rant I'm not going to go hunting for evidence one way or the other...


* yes, I've read the articles you linked; out of the four, two were about Surface firmware updates, not Windows 10, and one was an update that worked correctly but caused problems due to a technical implementation decision that Microsoft made. So that's one update that had installation problems on a limited number of systems (hell, one of the reports the article points to clearly states that it impacted only one of their VMs). So yeah, there's still quality issues, which as I said before is inevitable. One problematic update doesn't make Windows 10 worse than the previous versions of Windows.

[3dcandy]

Handbags at dawn...

On a lighter note, yes still problems for a few but generally fixes appear to be quicker to materialise

[Corky34]

I don't want an argument, I'm merely questioning an assertion you made that I don't think is true. You said:

and

Those aren't opinions. You're claiming facts. You're saying the quality control of Windows 10 updates is "awful". You're saying that quality "has taken a back seat". Tacking "in my opinion" onto the end of those statements doesn't magically make them immune from question and debate. Stating an "opinion" that you're then not willing to defend is basically just straight-up trolling.

No they're defiantly opinions, a fact is a statement that can be proven true or false and you know as well as i do that there's no way to prove that the new way of doing Windows is awful in terms of quality control as not only don't we have access to the data that Microsoft undoubtedly collates but "awful" and "quality" are entirely subjective.

And it's not that I'm not willing to defend my opinion it's that you're conflating opinion with fact as a way to start an argument.

I've yet to see anything that indicates the quality of Windows 10 updates is worse than in previous versions*. I'm happy to test evidence against that, but since this isn't my pet rant I'm not going to go hunting for evidence one way or the other...

* yes, I've read the articles you linked; out of the four, two were about Surface firmware updates, not Windows 10, and one was an update that worked correctly but caused problems due to a technical implementation decision that Microsoft made. So that's one update that had installation problems on a limited number of systems (hell, one of the reports the article points to clearly states that it impacted only one of their VMs). So yeah, there's still quality issues, which as I said before is inevitable. One problematic update doesn't make Windows 10 worse than the previous versions of Windows.

Maybe that's because you seem to think "quality" is an objective measurement that can be made by third parties when the only people that could measure "quality" would be Microsoft themselves, and even then it would be highly subjective as what they consider "worse" would be based on what criteria they set.

At least you've proved my point by using those articles as a means of moving the goal posts.

[peterb]

I'm struggling to see exactly what this discussion is about. One person has stated that they think that the update process for Windows 10 is worse than it used to be - an opinion that others seem to share, following the links.

On the other hand we have another person saying that they are not ( although whether that means they are no worse than they used to be, or as good as they used to be, is not clear )

So a difference of opinion - not the first or last time, but hardly a reason to start digging trenches and lobbing link grenades over no-mans land....

Fortunately, as an Apple user - these problems are less frequent.....



(note diversionary tactic in the last line - /prepares to get the anti-apple brigade turn their flamethrowers in my direction)

[Ozaron]

I don't think Windows updates themselves have gotten any better or worse subjectively, the only difference is that we're now forced to swallow them whether we like it or not (and now Microsoft can measure in even greater detail how many slip-ups they make rolling updates out.)
Maybe this data collection will allow them to improve over time but clearly it hasn't had a huge immediate impact.

Edit:

Fortunately, as an Apple user - these problems are less frequent.....

(note diversionary tactic in the last line - /prepares to get the anti-apple brigade turn their flamethrowers in my direction)

A WHAT USER???

[scaryjim]

I'm struggling to see exactly what this discussion is about. One person has stated that they think that the update process for Windows 10 is worse than it used to be ...

Hmmm, that's an interesting reading of Corky's comments - particularly of the bits I've highlighted that I have issues with; indeed I've said at least twice now that I'm not arguing about the update process itself. Clearly we have a definitions issue here.

No they're defiantly opinions, a fact is a statement that can be proven true or false ...

So you're saying you can't prove whether something is better quality than something else?!

... Maybe that's because you seem to think "quality" is an objective measurement that can be made by third parties ...

Erm ... it is. It's relatively trivial to develop frameworks for determining and testing quality, including of proprietary software. It's quite possible to perform both quantitative and qualitative studies on the subject, at a variety of levels. If you couldn't define objective measurements of quality you couldn't do quality control at all.

The quality of something is not all in your head. If you think it is - and that's been informing your contributions to this thread - then I can see where the problem arises.

[Corky34]

So you're saying you can't prove whether something is better quality than something else?!

No, and taking what i said out of context only reinforces my belief that you're wanting to start an argument.

In case it's not clear, although I'm not sure how it can't be as we're there are now some 24 post discussing the quality of Windows Updates since they adopted this new model, we're not talking about the quality of "something" we're talking about the quality of Windows Updates since they adopted this new model.

Erm ... it is. It's relatively trivial to develop frameworks for determining and testing quality, including of proprietary software. It's quite possible to perform both quantitative and qualitative studies on the subject, at a variety of levels. If you couldn't define objective measurements of quality you couldn't do quality control at all.

The quality of something is not all in your head. If you think it is - and that's been informing your contributions to this thread - then I can see where the problem arises.

Sure you can do that but as you're a third party at best you're making objective judgment on what you can see and using those objective judgment to make subjective judgments of what you can't, basically you're using objective facts to make a subjective interpretation of what you can't prove.

[scaryjim]

... as you're a third party at best you're making objective judgment on what you can see and using those objective judgment to make subjective judgments of what you can't, basically you're using objective facts to make a subjective interpretation of what you can't prove.

Huh?

You make a set of objective statements about what counts as good quality. Then you test things against them. You can do that for Windows Updates just fine, and you get a measurement of the quality of those updates. Whether it's the same measurement Microsoft use is kind of irrelevant, as long as everyone involved agrees on the measurements we're using.

You don't have to use the developers definition of quality to decide whether something is better or worse quality, but you do have to use some definition of quality before you can talk about whether something is better or worse quality.

Sorry, but this is rapidly edging towards "PCIe connection" all over again. You're welcome to use words like "quality" and "objective" however you see fit. I'll be over here, in the corner, scratching my head and keeping my mouth shut. Each to their own, I guess...

[Corky34]

Huh?

You make a set of objective statements about what counts as good quality. Then you test things against them. You can do that for Windows Updates just fine, and you get a measurement of the quality of those updates. Whether it's the same measurement Microsoft use is kind of irrelevant, as long as everyone involved agrees on the measurements we're using.

And prey tell how are you going to use those objective measurements of an agreed upon definition of "good" on every single device? At best you'd be using the objective data from maybe 1 or 2 devices and extrapolating that into subjective data, in essence you'd be saying X update didn't cause me any problems so it must be a good quality update despite not being able to prove that it's not caused problems for others.

You don't have to use the developers definition of quality to decide whether something is better or worse quality, but you do have to use some definition of quality before you can talk about whether something is better or worse quality.

Indeed, but you do have to have access to all the data to be able to make an objective judgment and seeing as the only people with access to that data are the developers it can't be classed as objective data as they're undoubtedly biased.

[me-yeah]

a fix has been around for centuries, just change your network settings and its all good

http://www.esreality.com/post/289074...ttings-to-try/

[Zak33]

LUNCH???? They let you have time off for LUNCH????

at his desk... mending someones work pc... natch

[Saracen]

....

I can't remember a version of Windows that hasn't at some point had an automatic update roll out that hasn't borked something horribly......

And that is both one of the differences between XP (and W7 for that matter) and Win10, and one of the things that is so objectionable in W10 .... in previous versions I decide when, and if] to upgrade. Which means I can choose, if I wish, to apply critical and security fixes, and fixes for software I use, and not to apply a mountain of fixes for things I don't and never will use.Also, I can choose to wait to apply even service packs until any borking is discoved and the borking bits fixed, having let those keen enough, or perhaps daft enough, to instantly update 'discover' what gets borked.

More relevsntly, to me, in the MS mindset it implies when they assuke the right to amend/alter MY system, even sometimes to the extent of re-enabling things I had drliberstrly turned off or disabling things I want and rely on.

MS seem to be under a misunderstanding of who owns the machine and it is that change in mindset, when MS just grabbing the ability to itself to overrule me on how my machine works that is so obnoxious of them, and to me, utterly unacceptable despite having been a professional user since the days of MS-DOS 2.x. No longer, though..

[excalibur1814]

In the business here, now that we're on Windows 10, I see nothing really different in the way updates arrive. We're obviously using a WSUS server but, other than that, machines not on the domain have no issues. Heck we've around 40 ish Win 10 machines and, other than MS changing something back to default upon a new build release, it's pretty much the same experience.

[MLyons]

other than MS changing something back to default upon a new build release

This is one of the most frustrating things they do.

[Output]

This is one of the most frustrating things they do.

And something that I'd think that businesses in particular should be pushing back against them for pulling.