Is having the latest updates REALLY that important?

[En4cer2k11]

A lot of people complain about the majority of Android devices for not getting software updates regularly. A lot of people praise Nexus devices over devices from other brands because their consistent, prompt software updates. However, when you consider all of the issues that many people complain about after having installed a new version of the operating system that the device probably wasn't even designed to run optimally for (as opposed to a brand new device which gets preloaded with latest software version), rarely ever offers any "ground breaking" innovations from the last version, and may leave you with a number of existing applications on your device which are now incompatible and rendered useless until an update rolls out for each individual incompatible app...
How important is it then to always have the latest updates IF there was nothing wrong with the previous version? Do we update just for the sake of updating without actually considering whether we actually NEED that update in our day to day usage? Are we spoiled with our incessant need to possess the latest and greatest of everything, no matter what it is or how usefully it actually is?

 

[saptech]

You bring up a good point. It seems the updates are mostly updates to the newest version of Android. I can't remember if any updates are for the current Android to fix any bug issues.

My question would be do they also update the current OS of bugs?

 

[viper689]

Your argument can be made for anything in life really. Do we really need a new car if the previous one ran? No, but I like heated seats and navigation. Do we really need 4g when 3g worked? No, but I like speedy downloads. Do we really need a food processor? No, but I don't like hand chopping vegetables.

Do we need updates before everyone? No, but I like having the latest and greatest. I knew that coming into the Nexus world, and having app incompatibility isn't Google's fault. Updating anything in the world is bound to be met with something or someone that doesn't want it to work, and people are always hesitant to change.

Simple solution. Don't update.

 

[Rxpert83]

You bring up a good point. It seems the updates are mostly updates to the newest version of Android. I can't remember if any updates are for the current Android to fix any bug issues.

My question would be do they also update the current OS of bugs?

Each update we get has bug fixes. In fact, for the smaller updates such as from 4.1.0 to 4.1.1 to 4.1.2 its mostly JUST bug fixes.

Major android version updates are where you get the big new features. Ex- 4.0 to 4.1 brought project butter, google now, ect. 4.1 to 4.2 brought multiple user support

 

[Demache]

When it comes to updates, I'm more concerned with bugfixes then anything else, although new features are always welcome.

 

[Netcat]

Sometimes updates can really screw up your device. When the Galaxy S2, Epic 4G Touch was updated from Gingerbread to ICS, MAJOR problems followed. Most people wanted to go back to Gingerbread. So I never installed ICS on my Galaxy S2.

Unless your comfortable rooting and installing ROM's, the best thing to do when a new update comes out is don't install it for a few days and DO read the forums to see what other people are experiencing. If there are no real problems with the update, THEN install it.

 

[Rxpert83]

Sometimes updates can really screw up your device. When the Galaxy S2, Epic 4G Touch was updated from Gingerbread to ICS, MAJOR problems followed. Most people wanted to go back to Gingerbread. So I never installed ICS on my Galaxy S2.

Unless your comfortable rooting and installing ROM's, the best thing to do when a new update comes out is don't install it for a few days and DO read the forums to see what other people are experiencing. If there are no real problems with the update, THEN install it.

That usually only applies to heavily skinned updates.

There's (almost) never those catastrophic problems with pure aosp updates.
Even the 2+ year old nexus s has no issues with aosp 4.1 jellybean

Also, ics got slapped on a bunch of devices that frankly couldn't handle the skinned version of it. Gb to ICS was huge changes. We're talking v 2.x to v 4.x.

Waiting a few days is still solid advice for those that are cautious. Me, I'm gonna dig right in
.

 

[magohn]

I would say that for an N7, there really isnt any point in straying from the official updates.

I also have an android phone and that's a different matter. I wanted wifi tethering etc and the only way to get that was to root and ROM.

For the N7, I don't see much point because its going to be one of the first devices to get any google update so why go to all the hassle?

 

[Rxpert83]

I would say that for an N7, there really isnt any point in straying from the official updates.

I also have an android phone and that's a different matter. I wanted wifi tethering etc and the only way to get that was to root and ROM.

For the N7, I don't see much point because its going to be one of the first devices to get any google update so why go to all the hassle?

Androids all about choices, and some like to have all the customization options that custom ROMS can give you.

I'm running cm10.1 on my nexus 7, and update to their newest nightly usually about once a week

 

[viper689]

I would say that for an N7, there really isnt any point in straying from the official updates.

I also have an android phone and that's a different matter. I wanted wifi tethering etc and the only way to get that was to root and ROM.

For the N7, I don't see much point because its going to be one of the first devices to get any google update so why go to all the hassle?

I agree with you to an extent. For the longest time, my N7 ran Bugless Beast (a stock rom with some performance optimizations) mainly because I wanted it to look like I didn't have a custom rom. I was cool with the stock experience on my tablet. But then I decided to try more feature heavy roms (I've always preferred feature heavy roms on my Galaxy Nexus) and now that I have 5 nav bar buttons, custom quick setting tiles, etc I can't imagine the stock experience anymore

 

[RichSz]

I disagree with the premise that the original hardware isn't designed for updated software. I'm a software developer who's code runs on custom hardware so I've seen a few product launches. Here's how it works.

Hardware and software teams get together to create a schedule and launch date. The launch date is set in granite but the schedule (defined as the steps needed to complete the project) is fiction or a lot of guesses at best. Both teams go off and do what they do but eventually one or both will run into a huge problem, which will impact their fictitious schedule. There is ALWAYS a big problem. While they work on the problem, the other team plows on and gets ahead of the problem team. The problem team, let's say the software team, is now behind on their schedule yet the launch date has not moved.

No team wants to be the one which forces the launch date to move. That would make them look very, very bad so they cut corners to get something usable by launch. Once launch occurs the software team isn't done. They've cut out features and bug fixes to get to launch, now they have to put all that content back in. Customers get this via updates.

The initial software you get on almost any device is not what it was indented to launch with, it's the first few updates which bring the product up to launch level. You want those updates.

For every person who encounters a problem, there are a hundred who haven't but don't start threads to let people know, why would they? Personally, I update everything as soon as I possibly can. The few issues I've encountered have always been outweighed by new features and bug (stability) fixes. If others would rather avoid those updates then that's totally cool. To each their own.

 

[En4cer2k11]

I disagree with the premise that the original hardware isn't designed for updated software. I'm a software developer who's code runs on custom hardware so I've seen a few product launches. Here's how it works.

Hardware and software teams get together to create a schedule and launch date. The launch date is set in granite but the schedule (defined as the steps needed to complete the project) is fiction or a lot of guesses at best. Both teams go off and do what they do but eventually one or both will run into a huge problem, which will impact their fictitious schedule. There is ALWAYS a big problem. While they work on the problem, the other team plows on and gets ahead of the problem team. The problem team, let's say the software team, is now behind on their schedule yet the launch date has not moved.

No team wants to be the one which forces the launch date to move. That would make them look very, very bad so they cut corners to get something usable by launch. Once launch occurs the software team isn't done. They've cut out features and bug fixes to get to launch, now they have to put all that content back in. Customers get this via updates.

The initial software you get on almost any device is not what it was indented to launch with, it's the first few updates which bring the product up to launch level. You want those updates.

For every person who encounters a problem, there are a hundred who haven't but don't start threads to let people know, why would they? Personally, I update everything as soon as I possibly can. The few issues I've encountered have always been outweighed by new features and bug (stability) fixes. If others would rather avoid those updates then that's totally cool. To each their own.

By not designed, I meant that, for the most part, the initial "out of the box" OS version typically runs fine or good enough, though there's always exceptions. Not always, but sometimes when we update to a new OS version, problems arise where they didn't exist in the previous OS iteration. Such as random reboots of the Nexus 7 upon updating from 4.1.x to 4.2. There were none in the former version, but they popped up in the latter version. I'm sure the device was not "designed" to reboot itself at random times of the day, but 4.2 made it so. So then, what is really so great about 4.2 over 4.1? Besides user accounts? Assuming you would share a personal portable device in the first place. Wouldn't a full fledged computer be better suited for multiple users? But that's beside the point.

And again, there are a number of apps on the market which aren't regularly updated but every blue moon, or have been abandoned altogether. So if I take the plunge with the update and one of my favorite apps, which DID work before, now no longer works and ISN'T likely being updated for the new version, I'm up a creak.

Finally, I think the pressure of solid release dates can be somewhat of a problem. Why tell people that something is GOING to come out on this date when you can't actually guarantee that it'll even be ready by then? Not everything always goes exactly according to plan. Life happens every now and again. You place unnecessary pressure on yourself by heightening everyone's anticipation on that exact release date. No room is left to account for human error. And last I checked, humans are FAR from perfect.

 

[viper689]

By not designed, I meant that, for the most part, the initial "out of the box" OS version typically runs fine or good enough, though there's always exceptions. Not always, but sometimes when we update to a new OS version, problems arise where they didn't exist in the previous OS iteration. Such as random reboots of the Nexus 7 upon updating from 4.1.x to 4.2. There were none in the former version, but they popped up in the latter version. I'm sure the device was not "designed" to reboot itself at random times of the day, but 4.2 made it so. So then, what is really so great about 4.2 over 4.1? Besides user accounts? Assuming you would share a personal portable device in the first place. Wouldn't a full fledged computer be better suited for multiple users? But that's beside the point.

And again, there are a number of apps on the market which aren't regularly updated but every blue moon, or have been abandoned altogether. So if I take the plunge with the update and one of my favorite apps, which DID work before, now no longer works and ISN'T likely being updated for the new version, I'm up a creak.

Finally, I think the pressure of solid release dates can be somewhat of a problem. Why tell people that something is GOING to come out on this date when you can't actually guarantee that it'll even be ready by then? Not everything always goes exactly according to plan. Life happens every now and again. You place unnecessary pressure on yourself by heightening everyone's anticipation on that exact release date. No room is left to account for human error. And last I checked, humans are FAR from perfect.

So are you saying that you don't want anymore updates in fear of a few incompatibilities? Because if so, then I'm surprised you're still not on Windows 95

 

[En4cer2k11]

So are you saying that you don't want anymore updates in fear of a few incompatibilities? Because if so, then I'm surprised you're still not on Windows 95

So you're equating the differences between windows 95 and windows 7 to the differences between android 4.1 and android 4.2?

But one thing's for sure, I won't be using windows 8. Call me archaic...

 

[viper689]

Well it seems like you don't like it when something gets updated because it introduces the possibilities of other things breaking. But that's an issue that will always be there since Google can't go through every single app to make sure it's compatible. A lot of the big apps will be promptly updated, so that's never been an issue for me.

And I'm with you on Windows 8. Just a poor user experience in my opinion

 

[lightsleeper23]

My N7 has never once rebooted by itself. I like the multiple users, my gf uses it a lot and likes having her own profile.

Oh, and personally I really like windows 8 on our desktop. It's made it fun to use again. Every now and then I appreciate a big UI overhaul.

 

[viper689]

I have a Windows 8 laptop, but as a developer, I hate having to go from working on the desktop, to having to press the Window key, and search for the command prompt. I liked having a Start menu, not page lol

 

[val88]

Well it seems like you don't like it when something gets updated because it introduces the possibilities of other things breaking. But that's an issue that will always be there since Google can't go through every single app to make sure it's compatible. A lot of the big apps will be promptly updated, so that's never been an issue for me.

And I'm with you on Windows 8. Just a poor user experience in my opinion

The tiles on the start screen of win 8 is nothing more than a launcher on top of windows 7 and the tiles are your widgets. If you can live with it for android, whats the big deal with windows. You can modify it if you don't like it. There are plenty of virtual desktops that you can install. Win 8 is so fast and smooth I can't find ways to hate it. It took me all of 3 days to get used to it. People who love the pure google nexus experience because they want to customize...well shouldn't you apply that same logic to win 8 on a desktop??

As for latesst android updates, no I don't think its REALLY important. I think a whole lot of people just want updates for the sake of having something most up to date whatever that means. You can tell by all the chatter on the web whenever there is a new update. The specific bugs addressed by each update is usually an after thought. People are always asking whats in the update (hoping for something new) rather than what does it fix. That topic is usually secondary.

I know you all hate to admit it but like ifanboys we want our device to be ahead of all other devices and having new features ensures that and thats why we like our updates. At least thats simply my own perspective.

 

[lucky013]

I don't know. Maybe it's just me but an update makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[En4cer2k11]

The difference, to me, between Android and Windows 8 is that Android is a mobile operating system designed for touch enabled devices. It wasn't "designed" as an OS to be primarily used on a desk/laptop computer with a mouse and keyboard. Windows 8 FORCES a touch-based OS upon a desk/laptop computer even if it ISN'T touch enabled. Which is rather stupid and pointless.

Why do I need a lockscreen on my computer? Those were designed so that touchscreens could not be accidentally turned on and used in one's pocket without the owner's knowledge.
Why must I use my mouse to simulate touch gestures to access menus?
Why can I NOT open a desktop application (such as notepad) from the desktop? Why MUST I go from the desktop to Metro (I refuse to call it "Modern". It looks like a damn children's coloring book) to access my desktop applications just to be taken right back to the desktop to run the application when I COULD HAVE just launched it in the desktop to begin with?
Why do I click to open a music file from windows explorer only to automatically be switched to Metro and have that file be opened up in X-Box Music when Windows Media Player is right there? In windows, I don't need a full screened app just to play music. Same goes for picture launching.

What happened to the concept of "windows"? Metro completely undermines the whole thing, which makes me wonder why they insist on retaining the "Windows" name when the desktop that HOUSES the windows is essentially downgraded to a secondary feature?
Everything needs to be CONTEXT based. If you're on the desktop, your desktop applications should be easily accessible from there and files should open NATIVELY in its corresponding desktop application. If you're in Metro, THEN you can have things launch in the corresponding Metro application. But don't have me switching back and forth between the two UI's because then it just becomes a very cheap gimmick, an annoyance, and a waste of time.

It's not the change itself, but the MANNER in which they changed things. I don't get the impression THEY (Microsoft) fully knew what they were trying to accomplished when they designed the damn thing. It seems more like they were desperate to try to compete with the likes of Apple and Android on the mobile front when they really didn't even NEED to. The have their many uses, but at the end of the day, Android and iPad tablets are simply overgrown smartphones. Toys moreso than tools (though at times, given the right app, then CAN be used as such). They already HAVE their own market which even Apple was never able to touch. Go into any computer software store (well, the ones that still exist, anyway) and compare the PC software with the amount of Mac software. Everybody uses windows PCs while a select, dedicated few use Macs. That's why Windows is the standard. Name a non-Mac PC that ships with anything other than Windows that sells. Every iteration of windows OS for the last 18 years that I've been using computers has been fundamentally similar in look, feel, and usability. And it's worked (much like Apple's slogan). Changes were gradual, minimal, and provided actual improvements over the previous installments without undergoing a complete overhaul to do so. Why they felt it necessary to make THIS their big push into the future of "windows", I have no idea. Desktop on mobile and mobile on desktop. All in one package. ... Why? There's a time and place for everything. Not always at the same time or in the same place, though.

/rant

 

[Demache]

I have a Windows 8 laptop, but as a developer, I hate having to go from working on the desktop, to having to press the Window key, and search for the command prompt. I liked having a Start menu, not page lol

Windows key + X makes using Windows 8 insanely more usable for commonly accessed administrative functions. Using Windows key + W also lets you search for settings specifically (I know that's not what your talking about, but its another keyboard shortcut I use regularly). I do like how shortcut friendly Win8 is.

Win X, C and your done. They even give you an option for the elevated command prompt (A instead of C), which was very nice of them.

 

[magohn]

Windows 8 sucks. In my job I have to use it daily. At home, Id pay just to keep Windows 7. As a previous poster stated, for touchscreen yes, for mouse and keyboard, no, no, no...

 

[Demache]

Windows 8 sucks. In my job I have to use it daily. At home, Id pay just to keep Windows 7. As a previous poster stated, for touchscreen yes, for mouse and keyboard, no, no, no...

Well I've been using since it launched on my gaming PC, and I really can't say I've had a bad experience with it. Fortunately, I'm a keyboard shortcut sort of guy, so I don't have to faff about with mouse gestures. And all the standard Windows shortcuts are still there. Not exactly sold on Metro (or whatever they call it now) so I still use regular Windows programs and the desktop but I love how much snappier it is then 7.

And I'm aware that 7 wasn't exactly slow, but it seems there is less niggling pausing, and the search feature is a lot quicker too and nicer how it divides searches into categories rather than lumping them all in one big list.

On a side note. And also, using this XP system I'm on right now, made me realize, "wow, the All Programs menu really blows". Its manageable when its a small list, but its a nightmare to use as it grows. Its slow, its clunky, and its ridiculously dated. I was spoiled rotten with the search in Vista and up. Never touched All Programs in 7. I'm glad they ditched it in 8.

 

[jhawkkw]

Not only do the updates have update have bug fixes, they also fix security holes.

 

[PlayfulGod]

I like the latest and greatest, hence why I bought Nexus devices. I usually tend to take it a step further and run CM* on my devices too, or in some cases bring up the device for CM*.

Its a personal thing, some buy Nexus just because they liked the device(s), others like me bought them to get the latest Android from google w/o waiting on carriers. Some Get a Nexus to contribute to the development of Android, be it apps, or ROMs for the community. All about choice, which is the great thing about Android, tons of choices even if you have to make them happen yourself.