507

After a particularly annoying update today (sopuli.xyz)

submitted 4 months ago by bleistift2@sopuli.xyz to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] TheSambassador@lemmy.world 51 points 4 months ago

Somebody convince me I'm wrong.

There is no reason to display "100%" in your UI for more than a single second. Either show 99% and then finish, or show 100% only when you are ACTUALLY done and only show it for a little.

If you're still doing ANYTHING AT ALL don't say you're 100% complete. How is it still like this

[-] const_void@lemmy.ml 11 points 4 months ago

How is it still like this

Because Microsoft knows no one is going to stop using Windows even if it sucks. It's same way no one actually moves to Canada when a shitty US president is elected. The average person has a high tolerance for bullshit.

[-] sus@programming.dev 8 points 4 months ago

more accurately, average person has a higher tolerance for bullshit than for spending many hours learning something new or spending potentially years applying for citizenship in another country

[-] tweeks@feddit.nl 3 points 4 months ago

I imagine it started with some sub-installations actually giving approximations that were acceptable and summed up, but then some finalizing was not taken into account or something needed to be added after the other processes are finished, and the deadline was close. That last part builds up over time with other quick additions and some annoying stuff that is actually quite performance heavy and not easy to incorporate through the whole installation. "Let's do it at the end as well."

No time / budget to change the 100% to 99% as they have to adjust calculations based on the processes that actually do a good job. Although a display change could fake it, priorities are elsewhere.

[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I don't think it counts percentages. It has to be more like : do this; display 30% ; do this ; display 70% ; do this ; display 100% ; do this; done (maybe);

[-] bitfucker@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago

Or you can use 100% with countdown and skip options

[-] Pyro@programming.dev 32 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It's especially bad when it's stuck like that for hours, and you have to make a gamble with a force restart.

[-] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 40 points 4 months ago

Spinners must die. I don’t care if I don’t understand what exactly you’re doing, Windows, (I’d be surprised if you knew), but show me something, anything about the steps you’re currently doing, so I can guess if you’re doing something at all.

[-] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 33 points 4 months ago

They could actually show you a command prompt / terminal readout, which shows warnings and errors when things just outright fail and the process is borked... but that would scare people, apparently.

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

LOL, yup! I was just going to reply that people find that scary, and then got to your last sentence. Idk why it scares people. I love seeing the output.

[-] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 17 points 4 months ago

Even if it scares people, why not provide a goddamn toggle to enable it for the non-dipshits?

[-] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 18 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Because MSFT long, long ago abandoned the concept of giving users choice, or just in general not treating them like idiot babies.

Brings me back to when I was contracting with them, same time Win 8 came out.

MSFT does what they call 'dogfooding', ie, every worker is alpha/beta testing basically all MSFT software all the time.

My team was managing SQL servers and running queries. SQL Manager, and a whole bunch of other shit completely broke when 8 came out.

It initially did not even have the ability to go back to a Win7 style interface.

They truly believed that limiting all office workers to a UI where they could have, at max, one pane on 1/3 of the screen and another pane on 2/3rds would be completely fine.

We effectively could do no work for about 1/3 of our contract.

Working at or for MSFT is a curse I would only wish upon my worst enemies.

I actually had to quit another, earlier contract as my manager expected me to work overtime without pay. Before that, my one cool boss just showed me that I was being paid about 1/3 of what MSFT was paying the contracting firm for me.

And that is to say nothing of the massive racism that all the American employees just looked the other way on: Pretty common for Indian employees of a higher caste to treat Indian contractors of a lower caste like total dogshit, and the line from HR was 'its their culture!'.

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Windows was designed with the average computer user in mind.

The ones that don't understand the difference between internet and wifi.

But a button to show this CLI would be nice.

[-] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It must be a really deeply integrated part of the Windows kernel because it has never been able to show progress properly.

Back in the days of floppy disks it always felt that actual copying started when the progress showed 100%.

[-] InFerNo@lemmy.ml 14 points 4 months ago

While we're on this topic, why does "update and shutdown" reboot the PC after updating? Just had this the other day. Was in my bed when I heard the PC running and when I got up to check, lo and behold, the login screen...

[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I thought that it restarted the pc, finished its whatever and then shut it down.

(Disclaimer: I don't really use windows, so I'm not super familiar with its latest shenanigans)

[-] Pika@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

This is what is supposed to happen with that option, in reality there is a very good chance that it just doesn't shut itself off afterward. Back when I used the OS I would have it set to auto update and since I shut my computer off nightly I didn't have a problem with it, but I found that it had a fairly good chance that if it updated when I shut it down my computer would still be running when I woke up in the morning. My work around that I put for it is I put a scheduled shutdown in task scheduler for early in the morning when I knew I was never up so if the system had restarted but failed to power itself back off again it would turn itself off.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)