Why the newest upgrade is not always the best

December 30, 2015

Should we always upgrade to the latest version of a program?

If there's one thing that makes modern software special, it's the frequency of upgrades. The days when every newer version came on CD/DVD (not to mention floppy disk) are long gone. These days, "patches" come in an avalanche via the Internet. It seems as if some applications can't go a few days without a newer update appearing that always fixes something. And on the other hand, if some don't show frequent "updates", we will think that their creators are "resting on their laurels".

But again, despite the ease with which everything is upgraded, it is not necessarily true that the newest software will be the best. AMD's new Crimson drivers are one such example. Users were happy to upgrade to the newest version in the hope of even better performance on their graphics cards. But several of them experienced graphics problems and overheating GPUs due to a bug that affected the fan speed.

Although upgrades have become a "bread and butter" nowadays due to the ease of creation and availability to users, they are rarely necessary. There are cases where an upgrade must be done because otherwise we won't have newer and useful features and functions, but more often than not it is not necessary. So then comes the legitimate question - is it ultimately necessary to always upgrade to the latest version of a program?

Some will certainly answer with an emphatic "Yes!". Many companies have taken advantage of this desire of users to always have the latest. Perhaps we feel good because we often get a message that something always needs an upgrade (do we need to communicate?). Perhaps again, with the speed at which newer devices appear, we want the corresponding software to appear.

The use of ... users as testers

The now well-known Windows Insider program is a perfect example of what the above headline means. Microsoft managed to secure one million beta testers for Windows 10 without paying a penny. In years past, such procedures were done by a company's own employees, a third-party company, or - at worst - by the friends and relatives of the app creator. And all these solutions cost more or less.

Using the fans as ...testers is a good idea, in theory. The fans get the software first and the company gets free "feedback". But at the same time it puts its most loyal fans at risk by asking them to address its most damaging mistakes.

Some of the latest versions of Windows 10 have been anything but perfect. The most recent one, introduced in November, had to be rolled back due to a bug that reset a user's privacy settings to factory defaults without their knowledge. The problem - which was very serious - is the reason why some companies, individuals or government agencies are avoiding the latest upgrades particularly to operating systems. And as a user's (or group of users') needs become more specific to a task, the more rapid upgrades are avoided in order not to disrupt the smooth functioning of their system.

The older one may be better, or at least necessary

The US Navy spends millions of dollars to have Microsoft support for its thousands of machines that continue to run Windows XP. Why do they continue to have an operating system that is almost 15 years old?

For the same reasons, a bug in a Windows 3.1(!) system caused the closure of an entire airport in France last month, and for similar reasons, there are companies that have machines that still use floppy disks. It was common in the past, to create some technology with the idea that it would be used for decades unchanged. Thus, there were no upgrades and any upgrades threatened to crash the system or suspend certain essential functions.

Not yet: Windows 3.1 shuts down an airport in France

But it's not just the companies that have reason to stay in the past. The author of the A Song of Ice and Fire series (better known as Game of Thrones), George R.R. Martin, still uses an ancient DOS(!) machine that is completely disconnected from the Internet (of course he couldn't be connected if he wanted to be). And he even still uses the 1980s WordStar 4.0 word processor to write everything.

Why? Because he has what he needs and is not distracted by having functions and "bling" that he doesn't need. "It does everything I want a word processor to do and nothing more," he said in a recent interview. And of course, because of its age and lack of connection to the outside world, it has the most security as well.

He doesn't have to worry about the autocorrector trying to correct his "mistakes", which is infuriatingly tedious when you're writing names like Daenerys Targaryen and Joffrey Baratheon. Sometimes, in fact, authors create their own words and terminology. Nor does he have to worry about viruses and hackers wanting to steal his writings.

For those interested, check out the interview.

It may seem like an exaggeration, but it's something that many professionals think about when they have a system that gets the job done without problems. While it's interesting to always be a pioneer with the latest technology, you're still always the one who will be tested and suffer with its teething problems. And the benefits can be very small when it comes to innovations.

And a word for the creators

It is not only the responsibility of users to install software and upgrades that they know will not harm the stability and proper functioning of their system. It is more the responsibility of the creators of the software. Quality control and market research into the real needs of users have been replaced by the frenzy of constantly upgrading software for - often - unfunny reasons. And that puts users at risk.

It doesn't mean that it would have been better to have stayed with DOS and 5.25" floppies, but it is important to put a brake on the upgrade craze. The ability to change software used by millions of users in a matter of minutes - as is the case with Windows, for example - is a huge responsibility. And it should be treated as such. And also to recognize that those who don't "jump on the latest upgrade train" are not necessarily technophobes. Upgrades - especially to critical software - should be treated with some scepticism.

from Elichord