NVME 2.0

  • Release Candidate 6
    We are at a “proposed final” true release candidate with nothing known remaining to be changed or fixed. For the full story, please see this page in the "Pre-Release Announcements & Feedback" forum.
  • Be sure to checkout “Tips & Tricks”
    Dear Guest Visitor → Once you register and log-in:

    This forum does not automatically send notices of new content. So if, for example, you would like to be notified by mail when Steve posts an update to his blog (or of any other specific activity anywhere else), you need to tell the system what to “Watch” for you. Please checkout the “Tips & Tricks” page for details about that... and other tips!


I think 2.0 is mostly a reorganization of the documentation presenting the architecture. They always add new optional minor features with the various point releases, but they kicked it from 1.5 to 2.0 because they were doing the reorg of the documentation.
That's not just a Microsoft thing. But they have the largest and most varied user base so naturally it evokes the most *itching. The wider your user base, the more difficult it is to keep anything simple.
Well MS used to actually have a proper QA team... they made the active decision to eliminate a fair amount of them when they announced the user based "testing" initiative known as the Insider Program and the release previews and feedback hub. It's too bad they're losing so much money they can't afford to do internal QA /sarcasm
One wasn't exclusive of the other. They overlapped and still had the same issues. It's simply the nature of having such a complex product with decades worth of backward compatibility. ALL companies face these same issues to one varying degree or another, depending on their user base and product complexity.
depending on their user base and product complexity
Well in my considerable experience, it is possible for a test and verification team to be so skilled as to find most of the most impactful problems before it reaches the field. You have to invest in the team, in their training, in their tools and their skills, but it makes a huge difference in the customer's perception of your quality. (And before you ask, no I cannot and will not talk in detail about my past employment, as I am under strict confidentiality requirements. What I can say is I worked on a product line that was comprised of about 10 million lines of code, was installed in millions of locations and had a history going back many decades.)
For all I know they did discover most of the the most impactful issues? I have heard that some of the test base just wasn't "listened to" but this isn't exactly unusual with amateur testers, as opposed to professional. Amateur testers produce a lot of "noise" with low quality communications. As is said, "there is always room for improvement".

I suspect a reason the recent Windows Explorer task tray flaw got through to general release is the likelihood that too much of the user base are techies with newer equipment and displays adjusted for smaller text. Few years ago at work, no one among the IT staff understood why much of the user base was blowing up the support lines with "freezing" and slow computers. Only reason I had an opportunity to beat them to discovering the cause was the fact that I still hang on to and regularly use an ancient laptop from when I was initally hired into the enterprise. It still had an HDD while the rest of IT (and my main machine) was running on SSDs; someone accidentally told every drive in the Enterprise to decrypt.

The recent print engine patching issues I suspect were driven by the necessity to "rush to release" and the likely realization that the entire decades old print engine needs to be rearchitected. But that will take at least a couple of years since it may mean redoing all of its drivers. We just replaced a perfectly good label printer at work a couple of weeks ago because the manufacturer dropped support for it nine years ago and already said they weren't going to rewrite another. (instead pointing us to one of their newer products) But that was an exception. For the most part, we've just had some cases were we've had to remove/reinstall workstation printers. I'm thinking they may end up encapsulating/isolating/sandboxing the print engine somehow.