Microsoft's problem is not how often it updates Windows-it's how it develops it

It's fair to say that the Windows 10 October 2018 Microsoft has most successful update. Reports of data loss quickly emerged, forcing Microsoft to suspend distribution of the update. It has been released and is currently undergoing a re-release.

This is not the first Windows feature update that's had problems-we've seen things like significant hardware incompatibilities in previous updates-but it's certainly the worst. Whereas most of us know the theory of having backups, the reality is that lots of data, especially on home PCs, has no real backup, and deleting that data is thus disastrous.

Windows as a service

Microsoft's ambition with Windows 10 has been improved. Windows 10. The company wants to improve its customer base and market it. Core to this was the notion that Windows 10 is the "last" version of Windows-all new development work will be updated to Windows 10, delivered through feature updates several times a year. This new development model was branded "Windows as a Service." And after some initial fumbling, Microsoft is on the pace of two features updates a year; one in April, one in October.

This effort has not been without its successes. Microsoft has used the new model to deliver new features. For example, there 's a role to play in the business of protecting the web. The Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL), which equips Windows systems to run Linux software natively, has been developed for developers and administrators. The benefits for pure consumers may be a little harder to discern-though VR features compatible with SteamVR, improved game performance, and a dark theme, have all been nice additions. While the overall improvements are smaller, the current Windows 10 is certainly better than the one released three years ago.

This is a good thing, and I'd argue that some parts of it could not have been done without Windows as a Service. WSL's development, for example, has been guided by user feedback, with WSL users telling the story of Microsoft's incompatibilities they've found and helping the company prioritize the development of new WSL features. I do not believe that it would be a good idea to have a good time. Regular updates reward people for reporting bugs, because they can actually see those bugs in a timely manner.

The problem with Windows as a Service is quality. Previous issues with the feature and security updates have already taken place in Microsoft Windows 10. While data is really lacking, there is a very little difference in the way it works. and that installation of the twice-yearly feature updates they are available is madness. These complaints are long-standing, too. The unreliable updates have been a cause for concern when shortly after Windows 10's release.

The latest problem has been brought to the fore, with commentators saying that it is a new feature of the world. Some worry that the company is dangerously close to a serious loss of trust, and for some Windows users, that trust may already have been broken.

These are the first calls for Microsoft to slow down with its feature updates-there have been concerns that it's too much churn for both IT and consumer audiences alike to handle-but with the obvious problems of the latest update, the calls take on new urgency.

It's not so often, it's how

But saying Microsoft should only produce one update a year instead of two, or criticizing the very idea of ​​Windows as a Service, is missing the point. The problem here is not the release frequency. It's Microsoft's development process.

Why is it the process, and the timeframe, that's the issue? On the release schedule, we can look at what other software does to get a feel for what's possible.

MacOS, iOS, and Android are two times in the world. Microsoft is attempting to overachieve. But it's not unprecedented: Ubuntu sees two releases a year, and Google's Chrome OS, like its Chrome browser, receives updates every six weeks. Beyond the operating system space, Microsoft's Office Insider program has a monthly channel that provides new features to the users of the system. The Visual Studio team similarly produces frequent updates for its development environment and online services. Clearly, there are teams within which their applications are regularly updated.

Move beyond the world of on-premises software and into online and cloud services, and we see, both within Microsoft and beyond, increasing adoption of continuous delivery. Each update is made to a system that is automatically deployed over production servers.

It's true that none of these projects is a complicated at Windows. Ubuntu may contain a more diverse array of packages, but it Windows does, of course, contain many individual components, and Microsoft has done so. But the fact remains that its scale is unusually large and unusually integrated. Windows is also, at least in places, extremely old.

These factors certainly make developing Windows challenging-but so challenging to make two releases a year impractical? That's not clear at all. It just needs the right development process.