News Microsoft pulls Windows RT 8.1 over boot bug

A cow is a mammal. Not all mammals are cows. Geddit?

 

Because you seem to be claiming it isn't, when the best you can do is claim upgrading from a buggy OS (Vista) to a newer version (7) caused 2 problems and then going on to claim Windows 7 SP1 caused 1 problem. Compare this to the 8.1 upgrade (service pack) causing over 8 known problems, and growing by the day.

And yes you are correct in saying "The two arguably can't be compared because they are different things." But these differences are in the way 8.1 was released and tested for problems. Historically when a service pack or new OS reached release candidate the code was locked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_to_manufacturing

But in the case of 8.1 Microsoft were still making major changes after it reached released candidate, leaving no time for hardware or software company's to address any issues caused, or work on updated drivers. So in the end Microsoft have caused not only financial loss to their customers but also done massive damage to their reputation of releasing general stable updates.

 

Sorry, how many problems (also: DVD not found; HP multifunction printers not found; power plan interferes with video playback)?

Yeah, Microsoft got rushed. What with a major re-org, Ballmer leaving and the pressure on to switch from three-yearly to yearly updates with a kernel switch somewhere in there, it has been working very close to the wire. That is a bad show, but I'm a bit hard-pressed to see how it is a worse show than other companies manage with e.g. IOS7 and Android 4+ --or how a hardcore game mouse lagging or a Surface RT tablet bricking is causing financial loss to the customers.

 

Greetings!

Most mammals in a "dairy barn" are cows. Get it?

 

So after two days of searching you come up with a few problems caused when upgrading two totally different OS's something as i have said before people recommend not to do. And of the two links you give as evidence, one is caused by someone trying to upgrade Vista to 7 "because Vista had become unstable" and using a unsigned driver meant for XP, Vista, not Windows 7 as the company never released a Windows 7 driver for the hardware he was using.

And the other link list three problems one of which was cause by people trying to use a upgrade product key to install Windows 7 on an empty drive (I.e not upgrading).

We could both site examples of failed updates until we are blue in the face, but since Microsoft's move to a faster release schedule they are starting to become known for botched updates and 8.1 is just another example of how it has been failing in its quality control of late.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2013/09/16/ms-pt-september/1

Microsoft didn't get rushed, they made the choice to keep altering the code of 8.1 after release candidate, after RTM (low-level features like the NT kernel and hardware abstraction layer), even making changes after the QFE released two weeks before 8.1 hit general availability.

And like i said before one of the reasons Windows became the #1 OS used in both the corporate and home environment was because of the generally stable, well tested updates. This new faster release cycle will do nothing but put people of upgrading or updating their OS.
This is worse than other company's even though you cant see it, as all the other OS's combined don't even make up %10 of the market so if one of those company's release a bad update it affects a much smaller amount of business or customers.

And if you cant fathom why botched updates cause financial loss to customers you really need to think what an average Jo with no computing knowledge would do when faced with a bricked Surface RT, or any other of the problems people are experiencing with the 8.1 update, people are going to pay for someone to fix the problems for them, they are going to be without a device they may rely on for earning a living, etc ,etc.

 

I disagree, the smaller company's would grow (imo), well actually whats more likely is some of the major OEM's will go bust and the others will be rubbing their hand at the thought of a bigger slice of the pie even if that pie is shrinking.

People predicted the death of the main frame many moons ago just as they are now with desktop PC's but even to this day main frames are in wide spread use and there are even predictions they will make a come back due to the push to get everything on the cloud.

 

Greetings!

So, most 50-100 tablets arent Androids?

Back on topic:

 

But the point is people are still buying PC's and the OEM's are still selling units, they just aren't selling as many as previous years.

Judging the state of a market based on the top 5 company's gives a very incomplete picture at best.
Even Intel lists 16 major OEM's on their site, as i said the figures say more about the top 5 OEM's declining market than actual sales numbers.

 

Greetings!

Multiple posts for this conclusion.

Now it can only be the dark grey smartphone with a small little pink heart at the back.

 

Greetings!

Always agreed. Was just amused on how throttled up you were.
Notice I wrote Androids as in "50-100 Androids tablets" not "Android".

 

Well seeing as Intel has been going since 1968 and AMD since 1969 when most people didn't even know what a possessor was, i think we have a long way to go before we reach a point that no PC's are being sold. Not only that but we would need a very large land fill site to dump the estimated 1.6 billion PC's in use today.
The PC is not dead: it's about usage not units

If a company cant sustain its self with a billion people using its product it doesn't deserve to carry on doing business.

 

Yes i did, but Intel and AMD existed before 1977 when only 48 thousand personal computers were shipped so to say "wouldn't cover either companies' expenses, and they'd go bust." isn't strictly true, just like other companies faced with a shrinking market they restructure, diversify.

I wouldn't say im moving the goalpost, simply stating that just because people aren't buying new boxes now doesn't mean they never will. When television first hit the market they experienced massive rises in sales and then sales declined because almost everyone had one, but eventually TV broke, newer better TV's made people want to get better models and this has and will continue.

 

I don't need to re-read what you said i understood what you said the first time, maybe you should re-read what i said, when i said company's restructure, diversify, and eventually TV broke, newer better TV's came along, and the smaller company's would grow, etc, etc.

The figures people like to quote to back up their claims that the desktop is dieing and everyone is moving onto tablets measure 5 company's sales 1. Lenovo, 2. HP, 3. Dell, 4. Acer, 5. Asus.
Even going on Intel's list of major OEM's that only two third of the market, how can you judge the overall sales of desktop PC's when you measure less (taking into account other OEM's not on Intel's site) than two thirds of the market.

Its not like thousands of other company's have never faced a saturated market and declining sales, did Ford go bust, did General Electric, etc, etc.

And lastly no we are not discussing what would happen if all the top OEM's vanished over night (even though i used that as an example), we are discussing if the claimed decline in PC sales that some people like to cling to ("You mean that home environment that imploded so hard around a dense core of tablets that PC sales hit an all-time low (for which Microsoft was also blamed, incidentally)?) are accurately reflecting the true state of affairs.