4 ms·

>Software was much more thoroughly tested before being released to manufacturing (through the golden master process) >since it was a major gaffe to release a b

>Software was much more thoroughly tested before being released to manufacturing (through the golden master process) >since it was a major gaffe to release a broken app that had to be updated with fresh physical media. Well, with maybe the exception of Office 6.0 which I heard described as 'so full of bugs it practically walks itself' It came on about 9 floppy disks. I had to install it in an office with about 15 standalone PCs and so had to do the disk 1, disk 2,.. shuffle for each PC. Not everything was better back then.

jacquesm 6y ago
Microsoft is not exactly the kind of company that I would use if I were to show what quality release management meant back in the floppy days. But lots of other companies got it right. That said, Office was super complex and an extremely large and rushed package (the competition was gaining ground).
- oblio 6y ago
  A lot of companies also got it wrong. Quality anything is a rare thing.
  - chongli 6y ago
    That is true. But some companies got it very, very right. They made software that has stood the test of time. The same can not be said of present-day stuff, which seems to change on a weekly basis. I don’t know how anyone will ever be able to use the old Facebook again once they shut it off.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      Weekly? Several times per day. Mind you, I'm going with the flow and I'll be more than happy to do things that way too, it is the competitive arena we live in and if you can't fight them join them. But I do feel that the code I wrote in the past was more mature, higher quality and had more longevity in it simply because the pace wasn't so idiotically high.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
      Isn't that just survivorship bias? The old software that survived either had massive lock-in or was good enough to survive. In another 20 years, some software from today will survive, and that too will be the stuff that was big enough, caused enough lock-in, or was good enough to stand the test of time.
      - chongli 6y ago
        It is and it isn't. My point is that back then it wasn't possible to update software continuously. Thus, the development model was very much focused around putting out discrete, fully functional versions. Today that isn't the case. It's all about continuous rollover. So in 20 years the software that "survived" will be the same old software that we're talking about now (from the 90s and earlier). All of the present-day software will be continually updated and may be unrecognizable in 20 years.

jacquesm 6y ago

Microsoft is not exactly the kind of company that I would use if I were to show what quality release management meant back in the floppy days. But lots of other companies got it right. That said, Office was super complex and an extremely large and rushed package (the competition was gaining ground).

oblio 6y ago
A lot of companies also got it wrong. Quality anything is a rare thing.
- chongli 6y ago
  That is true. But some companies got it very, very right. They made software that has stood the test of time. The same can not be said of present-day stuff, which seems to change on a weekly basis. I don’t know how anyone will ever be able to use the old Facebook again once they shut it off.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    Weekly? Several times per day. Mind you, I'm going with the flow and I'll be more than happy to do things that way too, it is the competitive arena we live in and if you can't fight them join them. But I do feel that the code I wrote in the past was more mature, higher quality and had more longevity in it simply because the pace wasn't so idiotically high.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    Isn't that just survivorship bias? The old software that survived either had massive lock-in or was good enough to survive. In another 20 years, some software from today will survive, and that too will be the stuff that was big enough, caused enough lock-in, or was good enough to stand the test of time.
    - chongli 6y ago
      It is and it isn't. My point is that back then it wasn't possible to update software continuously. Thus, the development model was very much focused around putting out discrete, fully functional versions. Today that isn't the case. It's all about continuous rollover. So in 20 years the software that "survived" will be the same old software that we're talking about now (from the 90s and earlier). All of the present-day software will be continually updated and may be unrecognizable in 20 years.