Why we don’t get builds faster, and why that is a good thing.

[Batu69]

One common complaint about the Insider program seems to be that Microsoft doesn’t release builds fast enough. This selective and delayed rollout of builds is seen as annoying and unnecessary by many.

It is often misunderstood why that is.

---

First things first: There are a lot of development branches. If Microsoft has learned one thing from the Longhorn debacle, then that a lot of different people working on one codebase is a recipe for disaster. So they split development into different virtual build labs.

 

Take a look:

Source: ms-vnext.net <- Click link for enlarge

 

---

There are currently 131 (known) build labs in the Redstone 2 development cycle.

In each of these build labs, a team is working on a specific feature or part of Windows.

What this means is that these feature packed builds many are looking for simply don’t exist – They are only created after the individual features are mostly done and stable enough to be merged together in another branch.

 

This is in fact the reason why we don’t see builds leak as much as we did in the past: The most exciting and feature packed builds are the ones that you can already access via the Insider Program.

 

Now, why is Microsoft so tight-lipped about new features and what is going on internally? You have the former President of the Windows Division, Steven Sinofsky, to thank for that.

 

His philosophy was to avoid making bold promises and then under-delivering, something that had been one of the many factors contributing to the Longhorn/Vista debacle.

While Microsoft has since moved on and changed, a lot of this mentality remains, some of it for good reasons. And the outcry following Microsoft abandonment of a lot of older Windows Phones contradicting their previous promise to update them all to Windows 10 certainly hasn’t helped change this attitude.

 

So you see, if they wanted, they could of course give us access to some of the internal branches and early glimpses at new features, but should would they? They’d put themselves under the scrutiny of the entire world and risk a shitstorm if they decided to drop a feature or change their plans.

They’d have nothing to gain, but a lot to loose. It doesn’t make any sense for them.

---

Now then, why doesn’t Microsoft at least roll out the Insider builds faster?

While builds of the rs_prerelease branch are compiled on a daily basis, as is the case with most branches, many of these builds don’t meet the internal criteria to be released.
If you follow any of the people who do sometimes get access to these builds, you will quickly see that these are not something you want. They are buggy and a nuisance to work with.

 

Imagine Insiders updating to one of these and having their PC stop booting. Microsoft would be bombarded with complaints, even if they added disclaimers.

If you have any doubts about that, take a look at all the comments in the Insider Hub accusing Microsoft of poor quality control even now.

This might reflect poorly on the public perception of the quality and stability of Windows.

---

So, why do we even want faster builds?

It is in Microsoft’s s own best interest to release builds as fast as possible to be able to better pinpoint where instabilities or bugs were introduced, and to see how we react to new features.

 

If they decide to postpone a build release, they usually have a good reason for that.

It wouldn’t hurt to tell everyone the reason though. Knowing that we don’t miss out on anything might make waiting a bit more easy for all the Insiders.
This would also be a huge step in the right direction in terms of open communication with the Insiders.

 

While I and many others would appreciate Microsoft to be a bit more open when talking about new features and such, it is obviously a walk on the line for them. They’ve been hurt by this in the past, and are understandably reluctant to promise too much.

---

I’m going to leave the final words to Raymond Chen, who said the following about leaked builds in the Windows 8 era. You will find a lot of his statement still applies even today.

These were builds not intended for public consumption, and their existence was pretty much all downside. The first impression the outside world got of a new feature was the buggy version, which was also probably quite ugly on top of being buggy.

 

That is rarely a good first impression. The feature arrived without context; people often jumped to conclusions about what the intended purpose was.

The team didn’t get a chance to talk to partners in order to give them a chance to raise their concerns about the new feature.

 

The premature disclosure meant that the team’s big announcement event no longer had the impact the team wanted.

And there are some legal issues that are tied to the date a feature first becomes available to the public. Seeing a feature go public prematurely throws a bunch of scheduling into disarray because you now have to finish those legal documents in less time than you planned.

---

Article source

[steven36]

This post dont make no sense there comparing  Windows 10 to  Vista  witch was tested from 2000- 2006  before it got released,  one group of beta testers for 6 years lead by Bill Gates  ..  Vista was not a free upgrade nether  so it dont have the same amount  testers .  Even after it being in Beta for 6 years  it was crap they didn't get it mostly stable tell Vista SP2  in 2009  , By then Windows 7 was out and everyone  hated Vista but very few . Windows 8.1 is mostly stable no one wanted it ether . Windows 10 has gave everyone problems from Fast Ring ,Slow Ring to Stable from updates  or whatever.

 

Windows 10 Insider is a Rolling release  .And   the stable release come out about 2 times a year  with no option for LTS to the consumer  it only comes in Enterprise .  They use all the groups as testers but   Long Term Enterprise. And all the masses want  is a stable O/S they didnt sign up for all these regressions that end up in stable .    .                                                                                                     

[eurobyn]

there are some problems in redstone (even after clean install) but it works nice and is very stable (my opinion)

there are some strange things that can be better but it work great. (with a clean install) i hope the redstone 2 (what is coming) haves that bugs solved.

but everyone haves to consider to do a upgrade or a clean install. i prefer a clean install .

 

hoping up to get less bugs .

 

hoping they do something  about keyboard that does not match in wifi screen to logon.

you have azerty keyboard and in wifi connection it is qwerty ? strange ? hope they fix it in redstone 2

 

 

 

[Karlston]

10 hours ago, steven36 said:

Windows 8.1 is mostly stable no one wanted it ether

 

I do

 

With Windows 8.1 (on my newish Skylake box) I now have a stable and mature OS that *I* feel in control of. After several months with Windows 10 I found it to be the direct opposite... unstable, immature, and an OS that Microsoft controlled.

 

And, after listening to several friends' endless (justified) bitching about Windows 10, I've upgraded (yes... upgraded) two of them to 8.1 and they're delighted. I can see a business opportunity here...

 

(I know there are plenty of folks happy with Windows 10, and I respect their view and am happy for them)

[steven36]

3 hours ago, Karlston said:

I do

I liked windows 8.1 too  i used it for a few years  both of my PCs came with.it,  one came with windows 8 witch was a free upgrade to windows 8.1 trough the store  and my other one came with windows 8.1 . There are some who are on Windows 8.1  still but not many because they never was . Most stayed on Windows  7   or most went too windows 10 from Windows 7 and 8.1. That's in the past for  me I use Windows 10 and Linux  the only LTS release i have is Linux Mint  I also use a rolling release in Linux called manjaro.  On the 2 PCs  i have  2  installs of Windows 10  RS 1 and 2 versions of Linux Mint and a install  of manjaro i have to maintain .  Plus  I still have windows 7 on one PC i never use and there's laptop  on my network  i maintain. So i dont have time to be beta testing Windows 10 . Microsoft has the money too pay people to test. Open Source  Linux is different it's volunteer ..