Enterprise Desktop | Randall C. Kennedy | TAG: Apple

MORE ENTRIES

TAG: Apple

July 29, 2008 | Comments: (0)

Windows "Mojave:" Another sign that Microsoft just doesn't get it

It's like that classic Folgers Coffee commercial: "We've secretly replaced their regular coffee with dark, sparkling Folgers crystals. Let's see what happens." Only instead of some food conglomerate sneaking around restaurants replacing coffee grounds, it's Microsoft that's pulling the big switcharoo.

The "marks?" Unsuspecting XP users who have supposedly dismissed Windows Vista, sight-unseen, because they heard somewhere -- from a friend, on the Internet, in the mainstream media -- that it sucks. These users are then allowed to try out what they are told is a "future" version of Windows (code named "Mojave"). In fact, what they are actually test driving is Windows Vista -- apparently, these people live under a rock because that day-glo, semi-transparent Aero color scheme is usually a dead giveaway.

Regardless, these "duped" users inevitably give the Windows Mojave preview a thumbs up, at which point Microsoft does the whole big reveal scene ("we lied -- it's really Windows Vista!") and the users walk away with a new, positive opinion of Microsoft's latest and greatest. And, of course, Microsoft then trumpets these dubious "findings" as proof that Vista's failure in the marketplace has more to do with customer perception (and a healthy dose of media bias) than any real problems with the OS.

But while the Mojave project may help Microsoft grab a few headlines (embarrassing folks by tricking them into contradicting themselves on camera always makes for good copy), it does nothing to address the very real flaws that are causing enterprise IT shops to turn away from Vista in droves.

A more apt cultural reference might be the less well-known Ally & Gargano parody of the aforementioned Folgers spot:

"We're here in a famous restaurant outside Chicago, where we've secretly replaced the coffee with sand and ground-up clamshells. Let's see what happens."

Choking. Gagging. A muffled scream or two. These are the reactions from the "patrons" in this classic parody spot promoting the Regina Electrikbroom. And they seemingly mirror the sentiments of IT veterans, many of whom are similarly gagging at the thought of having to swallow the gritty Vista sludge being pushed down their throats by Microsoft. But the fine dining angle is only half the story.

The sad truth of the whole Mojave debacle is that it proves, once again, that Microsoft doesn't care about the enterprise desktop anymore. Why? Because it's too busy obsessing over its perception in the consumer market. And it doesn't help that the Mac crowd continues to pour fuel on the fire. They've got the folks from Redmond so worked up over Apple's continuous jabs -- "Vista's fat, slow, buggy, and JUST NOT COOL!" -- that the "Microsofties" are now beginning to take it personally.

The result? What is arguably the world's most important software company is now lashing out in all the wrong directions: At the media; at the competition; even at its own customers.

What Microsoft needs to do is cut the consumer-focused nonsense and apologize to IT for its myriad mistakes with Windows Vista. That, and promise to make things right again with Windows 7. Continuously beating the "Vista doesn't suck" drum only serves to further alienate IT while reinforcing the company's perceived indifference to our wants and needs.

Note to Microsoft: Windows will never be hip like the Mac. And, frankly, with a billion seats and the lion's share of all desktop software worldwide, it doesn't have to be. So why keep acting like a bunch of awkward geeks trying to hang with the cool kids in the high-school cafeteria? The Vista "teen angst" story is getting stale. Time to grow up and start acting like the world's most important software company again.

Posted by Randall Kennedy on July 29, 2008 03:00 AM

July 01, 2008 | Comments: (0)

A classic NT/Windows 7 gem from the blogosphere

One of the best parts of blogging is the opportunity to interact with readers. Through the comments mechanism attached to virtually every blogging platform, both fans of a blog and its detractors have an opportunity to voice their opinions. And sometimes, the contents of a blog site’s comments section surpasses – in terms of intrinsic value – the original posting.

Case in point: The recent rant by Mahmoud Al-Qudsi over at NeoSmart.net. In his posting, Mr. Al-Qudsi is attempting to discredit the anonymous author of the mysterious “Shipping 7” blog, a person who claims to be a Microsoft insider working on the next version of Windows. After blathering on for several paragraphs about what he believed were amateur “mistakes” in one of the “Shipping 7” author’s web postings – and how this should discredit the blog as a source of insider info – one of Mr. Al-Qudsi’s own readers (username “AnthonyTP”) takes him out behind the proverbial “woodshed” for a quick lesson on Windows history and architecture. What follows is one of the most concise, accurate and informative defenses of the Windows NT architecture I’ve ever read:

NT is NOT like *nix kernels or even other MACH variants like OS X. There is a large element of simplicity to its complexity when it is broken down.

The basic NT kernel and design is also very modular, so by comparing it to the Linux kernel is going to get you into trouble.

NT is a hybrid kernel that took a fairly elegant approach to kernel design, especially for the early 90s, as it was a new conceptual kernel of the time, taking some existing kernel architectu[r]al models and some of the best kernel theories that had not been implemented before.

For example NT has some MACH conceptual ideas and lightweight kernel API set for performance, but then hands this off to increasing levels of APIs co[m]plexity. This gave NT the ability to be very lightweight at the core, but have extended functionality that didn't weigh the core kernel down.

NT's HAL for example was under 64KB, and even on Vista is still 256KB(slightly larger in Vista x64), which for modern hardware is still extremely small. Going from the HAL to the lower kernel and API layers is still very small, especially compared to other OS kernel models in use today. This is how and why the MS Embedded OSes (XP/Vista) can and do work so well, as NT was simply broken apart as needed for the Embedded versions to make them very light (As in used in a router light).

The essential design of the NT kernel is both object based and a client/server model. This is not normal, or something that you will find in any other consumer level OS out there.

What the client/server model of the kernel of NT allows is the light core kernel with limited APIs secondary NT APIs and then subsystems for the actual OS clients that run on top of it. This is why even Win32/Win64 is just a subsystem that sits on NT, and can be ripped off of NT at anytime, as MS has demo[n]strated for YEARS.

The client/server kernel design of NT is also how MS can and does include a BSD or V5 UNIX subsystem for Vista, as the UNIX subsystem is just another OS sitting on the NT kernel client/server model. The UNIX sub[s]ystem in Vista is equal to Win32/64, as they are both sitting on the NT kernel in the same way. Win32/64 only has preference as it is the the default OS subsystem. By both Win32/64 sub[s]ystem and the UNIX subsystem running together on top of NT, they both get the drivers and benefits of the NT layered kernel, but also can cross communicate via the NT kernel, and all of this happens with no emulation layers.

For people truly interested in the NT design, source code of the NT kernel can be obtained from Microsoft for academic purposes, just search www.microsoft.com and be a teacher of some sort.

This gives academic minded people access to and a greater understanding the NT architecture from the HAL to the API layers and subsystems that run on it.

Based on the NT design, I would have to correct you in asserting that ripping out EXT3 from Linux would be as hard as adding in Reiser as a comparison. NT and Linux kernels are VERY different in this regard. Take the recent Linux arguments about the HardLocks code that is giving Linux trouble with multi-processor granularity.

Changes to the older hardlock mechanism in Linux requires a substa[n[tial amount of work and tricks to bypass, and is why things are not going so well. With an NT design, something like this is API wrapped at a low level, and changing the mechanism would be rather simple, not require someone to sift through 9000 lines of code to change the setting.

Another example would be Vista, and Microsoft adding on a Video driver model. (Not just new drivers, but a new model of how they are handled from the kernel as well.) This was easier on NT than it would be on a Linux or even OS X kernel design because of the NT design. This is also how Microsoft was able to add in the new WDDM while still allowing the XP drivers(XPDM) to operatate on Vista if needed. That alone would be a nightmare situation for both driver and kernel level feature support if this was tried on Linux or OS X.

The WDDM not only splits the video driver to a shared kernel/user level model, but it works with the NT kernel of Vista to things no other consumer currently can do. Features like transparent GPU RAM vir[t]ualization, an OS level scheduler for the GPU, creating a pre-emptive state of GPU multitasking controlled by the OS (WDDM), and even multi-GPU processor support that works with the GPU multitasker. The WDDM in Vista allows several 3D applications on screen at the same time, and gives them all extra VRAM than what is available on the GPU hardware, and because the OS handles the multi-tasking, no applicati[o]n can steal the GPU to halt responsiveness, but yet even with demanding games running at the same time, they only lose a few FPS running side by side compared to them running exclusively full screen.

So you can see that dropping in the WDDM to Vista was a good achievement in that it works as transparently as it does, but this would not have been possible if it weren't for the NT achitecture that allows for massive kernel level conceptual changes by adding in new API kernel level constructs that layer on the lightweight lower level NT kernel APIs.

After taking a bit of this in, you can maybe get a glimpse of the simplicity and the complexity of the NT architecture and why the MinWin used at the demo[n]stration that started a lot of this, is no different than the internal MinWin that Microsoft has used and showcased internally for years. It is nothing more than the NT kernel at the basic level with select API layers used, which is something that can be fairly easily done with NT. And yes technically the NT kernel can be fairly small when you remove the upper level kernel level API interfaces and especially the subsystems like Win32/64 that sit on top of them.

This is why when people call for Microsoft to write NT from scratch, many OS engineers/theorists like myself scratch our heads at the level of understanding. Rewrite Win32, sure why not, rewrite NT, a sadly bad idea. NT is more advanced and useful than what people give MS credit for, especially if lightweight, extensible, fast, and modular are your design goals for a kernel.

Also a thing of note, you call BSD a kernel, it technically is a set of APIs, an 'interface' to a kernel not an actual kernel, and on OS X would be the API wrappers around the modified MACH system calls, not the OS X kernel.

Like I said, powerful stuff. Personally, I knew (or at least suspected) much of this already – after working with, and developing for, a platform on a daily basis for over 15 years, you tend to pick-up things. Still, it was nice to see the case for NT’s internal sophistication/purity so eloquently presented by someone with the technical chops to pull it all together (sort of like a poor man’s Mark Russinovich, only less confrontational towards Linux).

It also reinforces my belief that Microsoft blew it with Vista by burying what is still a technically sophisticated, state-of-the-art OS under a mountain of consumer-focused crap. As an original NT purist (I literally wrote the book on “Migrating to Windows NT” back in 1993 – look it up), I’ve bemoaned each new concession to the Windows 9x/Me team holdovers, from win32k.sys in Windows NT 4.0 to the god-awful “Luna” UI theme in XP. For people like me, Vista is an abomination – what happens when big decisions are left in the hands of the “crayons and construction paper” crowd.

Oh well, at least we still have Server 2008...

Posted by Randall Kennedy on July 1, 2008 11:59 PM

June 24, 2008 | Comments: (0)

The mythical "Vista application"

I love analysts. Whether it's predicting tomorrow's next big thing or sounding the death knell for yesterday's industry pacesetter, analysts never run out of new ways to get it wrong.

Case in point: Windows Vista and the "app gap." According to Evans Data Corporation (EDC), less than 10 percent of developers are writing for Microsoft's current state of the art. The majority (49 percent) are still writing for XP, while a small, but growing, contingent (13 percent) are focusing on Linux. Meanwhile, the myriad major media outlets continue to decry the lack of new Vista applications. "It's the OS that nobody wants," they say, and developers are "reacting accordingly."

Of course, they're wrong. Again.

You see, there's no such thing as a Vista application. Just like there's no such thing as an XP application. Or a Windows 2000 application. Developers who write for Windows rarely target a specific version. Rather, they select a particular API framework -- for example, MFC/ATL or .Net -- and proceed from there. Whether or not the resulting application runs on a given Windows version depends on what, if any, version-specific API extensions the developer employs in their project.

For the majority of application types, this is a nonissue: They use the generic API functions, which allows them to run across any version of Windows that supports that framework. And since Microsoft does a good job of back-porting new frameworks to its legacy OS platforms, developers are rarely faced with a choice between rich API functionality or a broad installed base (the notable exception being video game developers, for whom leveraging DirectX 10 means committing to Vista).

So the entire Vista "app gap" argument is a bit of a straw man. The real question should be: Why aren't developers leveraging the various iterations of the .Net framework? As anyone who follows Microsoft's development road map will attest, most of the company's cutting-edge API evolution is taking place within .Net. In fact, when the "experts" talk about new programmatic resources in Vista -- Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF), Windows Communication Foundation (WCF), and so on -- they're really talking about the .Net framework 3.0. And since .Net 3.0 is available on down-level platforms (such as Windows XP), the argument circles back around to a question of .Net acceptance among developers -- and why they have (so far) shunned it.

The answer is twofold: First, developers don't like to target APIs that aren't broadly available across the installed base. Despite Microsoft's aggressive support of down-level versions, there's still a big difference between "available" and "available after downloading 20MB-plus of complex libraries and having them installed across various parts of your system." The fact of the matter is that .Net doesn't ship as part of Windows XP, and that means that developers need to convince users to first install the required version of the .Net framework before they can install a piece of software -- not always an easy sell, especially in the locked-down world of enterprise IT.

As the first OS to ship with the .Net framework installed by default, Vista was supposed to encourage development of .Net 3.0 applications. However, since it also supports legacy Win32, COM, ATL, MFC, and down-level .Net framework applications, there's no real shortage of Vista programs. In fact, unless you've just got to have that latest and greatest WPF/WCF framework functionality, there's little to motivate you, the developer, to make the jump to .Net 3.0, or even 2.0. Assuming you don't bump into the User Account Control (UAC) mechanism, your "legacy" Windows application probably looks and works great under Vista as is. I know, because that was the case with my own code: A few tweaks to accommodate UAC (mostly shifting some temporary files away from newly protect directory structures) and my applications and services were running like champs under Vista -- just like they do under Windows XP, Server 2003, and Windows 2000. Why fix it when it ain't broke?

The second reason developers have shunned .Net is that it's slow. Many common functions simply take longer under .Net, forcing developers to choose between API sophistication and raw performance. Not surprisingly, most developers choose the latter, as I was once forced to do when I discovered that the .Net equivalent of Performance Data Helper (PDH) was all but unusable for real-time sampling of Windows performance counter data. As a result, I'm forced to maintain an aging (circa 1997) Visual Studio 6 code base while waiting for Microsoft to finally streamline .Net to a point where it's a viable alternative. It's an old story and far too common among Windows developers.

Bottom Line: When analysts (and their media accomplices) decry the lack of "Vista applications" they merely trumpet their own ignorance.

I'm guessing it's a Mac thing: So many of my contemporaries have been caught up in the reality distortion field that the idea of a link between API functionality and OS version has become an accepted part of the conventional wisdom. It's an honest mistake, equating Apple's archaic patchwork of version dependencies to Microsoft's imperfect, but far more flexible, API sprawl.

Too much fruit will do that to you.

Posted by Randall Kennedy on June 24, 2008 03:00 AM

June 17, 2008 | Comments: (0)

Handicapping the Windows 7 alternatives

It's been an interesting couple of weeks on the desktop OS front. Microsoft's big reveal regarding Windows 7 and its Vista heritage sent many of my blogospheric contemporaries scrambling to justify their myriad off-base predictions. Having anticipated this outcome weeks ago, I was free to ponder an even more radical set of possibilities -- specifically, which of the current crop of Unix-based OS is best positioned to knock off Windows 7 come late 2009.

Note the timeframe qualifier above. I'm not interested in what's available today. Rather, I'm looking 12 to 18 months out in an effort to divine what kind of competitive landscape Windows 7 will be born into. As Microsoft churns away at its typical, glacial development pace, emerging challengers, such as Ubuntu and OpenSolaris, continue to evolve. How far they get during those intervening months will determine what percentage of those coveted XP fence-sitters finally choose to abandon Windows altogether.

Ubuntu: Once the poster child for Windows-to-Linux defectors, Ubuntu has lost some of its coolness factor. Consecutive lackluster releases, plus a "pass the buck" mentality toward lingering kernel issues, have tarnished Canonical's once unassailable reputation. Add to this Mr. Shuttleworth's obsession with the emerging ultra-low-cost PC segment and you have a recipe for disaster.

There's still time for the company to come to its senses -- to take responsibility for more than just the packaging of its distro. With two or three major releases between now and Windows 7's earliest, most optimistic delivery target, Canonical has an opportunity to shore up its position as desktop Linux torch bearer by dumping Gnome, embracing KDE 4.x, and doing whatever it takes to improve reliability across a greater range of hardware configurations. Do that, and it might have a shot at securing some of the more open-minded XP defectors.

OpenSolaris: A true dark horse candidate, OpenSolaris has the pedigree to be a real challenger to Windows, at least in the enterprise. Sporting a clean, battle-hardened kernel architecture, OpenSolaris is what Linux wants to be when it grows up: mature, robust, and confident. Unfortunately, all of the FOSS folks are too busy playing with their GNU tinker toy to be bothered with supporting a platform that may or may not be compatible with their "free as in air" ideology.

And this means that OpenSolaris remains a few revisions behind the times, as evidenced by the down-level iterations of Gnome and related utilities in the 2008.5 release. Still, if Sun ever decides to get serious about OpenSolaris, it could make a run at the title.

The Solaris-derived foundation is solid. What it needs is expanded device support and a concerted effort to port the best of FOSS to its currently anemic repositories. As Microsoft continues tripping over its own consumer/media aspirations with each new Windows release, the time may soon be ripe for the reemergence of a more "responsible" solutions from the Unix standard bearer.

Mac OS X (or XI): Lately, it seems as if Apple can do no wrong. The iPhone is a hit, its laptops are trendsetters, and OS X is held up as the perfect marriage of form and function.

Yet, despite all this success, the company continues to cut itself off at the knees by refusing to license OS X outside of its own hardware. I'm convinced this is partly out of fear; Apple knows that if/when it releases OS X to the masses, it'll have to support it on the same hodge-podge hardware environment that makes Microsoft look so bad. And tarnishing the image of the revered OS X is not a possibility Apple wants to entertain.

Which is too bad because, given enough hardware support, a platform-agnostic OS X could put a major dent in Microsoft's installed base over the next year and a half. However, such a move requires vision, not to mention a modicum of courage -- both of which seem to be in short supply over at 1 Infinite Loop.

Note that I'm not listing Windows XP here since I believe that, post-2009, hanging on to this rapidly aging platform makes little sense. If you're going to reject Microsoft's upgrade path, then do yourself a favor and go all the way. Try one of these emerging competitors. Chances are, given another 12 to 18 months of development, more than one of them will begin to rival Windows XP as the best alternative to Windows 7 -- a.k.a. Vista Reloaded.

Posted by Randall Kennedy on June 17, 2008 03:00 AM

June 03, 2008 | Comments: (0)

Desktop Windows: Is it time to "cut and run?"

Cutting and running. A bad idea for chainsaw massacre movie villains, scissors-wielding grade school students and the occasional foreign incursion. But what about IT? At what point does further investment in a platform or technology cease to make sense?

Until now, I've been advising Vista fence-sitters to wait for Windows 7. However, last week's "big reveal," in which Microsoft finally confessed that Windows 7 will be nothing more than "Vista warmed over," has forced me to reconsider my position. I'm now more convinced than ever that Windows is doomed - at least on the enterprise desktop. What Microsoft's aging (in the U.S., NT is almost old enough to vote) OS needed was a heart transplant. What it got was a new name, a fresh change of clothes and an A.M.A. discharge from the ER.

It's not enough. The IT community deserves better. Microsoft's loyal customers deserve better. The folks from Redmond owe us a fresh start; a clean break; a path to the future free from legacy baggage. Basically, they owe us a new Windows.

"MinWin" was a good start. Unfortunately, Microsoft executives seem to lack the will to see it through. It's easier to keep re-warming the same stale bits over and over again, safe in the knowledge that the Windows customer base will lap it up all the same. Monopolization has its privileges.

Of course, the secret to maintaining a de facto monopoly is to not push your customer base too far. Every industry segment has its breaking point, a fact Microsoft learned the hard way with Windows Vista. With Vista, they ignored IT, choosing to instead kowtow to big media and the DRM crowd. The result was an unprecedented backlash as angry IT shops spurned Vista and drove the Save XP campaign to international attention.

Now we learn that Microsoft's one chance to get it right - to atone for its sins and perhaps salvage some modicum of respectability - is really just another PR stunt. Windows 7 will be Windows Vista "Part Deux." Same clumsy, monolithic architecture. Same crippling legacy baggage. Whatever hope may have been sparked by the whole "MinWin" fantasy has now been officially snuffed out.

If I sound frustrated it's because I am: At Microsoft for refusing to leverage its vast technical resources to address Windows' myriad shortcomings; and at the customer base for agreeing to take each new batch of Windows lemons and make lemonade.

When will the Windows community wake up and realize how much power it has? We've already demonstrated what can be done when enough of us decide that, hey, we really don't like lemonade all that much. Vista is a debacle precisely because we decided "enough is enough" - and because a viable alternative (XP) still existed. Microsoft's response? Try to squash the "rebellion" by pulling the rug out from under us (i.e. XP's impending expiration date) . Talk about sour grapes!

That's why I say it's time for the Windows community to take a hard look at alternative platforms, like Linux and Mac OS X. It's over there, on the other side of the fence, that the real innovation is occurring. By contrast, Windows - including the over-hyped version 7 - is an architectural dead end. We, as a community, need to accept this fact and move on.

Posted by Randall Kennedy on June 3, 2008 03:00 AM

April 21, 2008 | Comments: (0)

As a veteran IT professional, I often get a kick out of how the mainstream media views technology. Whether it's some pseudo-custom UI in a Hollywood blockbuster (take "True Lies" and the Arabic Mac-in-Windows, for instance) or a newscaster trying to explain the intricacies of the DOJ/Microsoft antitrust ruling, I can't help but snicker when I see or hear something that shows just how ignorant the presenter really is.

Case in point: The recent "Ultimate Lab Test" showdown in Popular Mechanics. Why this bastion of insight into experimental flying machines and homemade survival shelters felt the need to comment on the whole Apple vs. PC debate is beyond me. However, I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth -- and as biased, uninformed "puff" pieces go, this one's a doozy!

Some observations:

The hardware configurations weren't identical. In fact, they weren't even close. In some cases the systems were separated by as much as 2GB of RAM. In others, they weren't even using the same CPU generation. Clock speeds were all over the map. The whole "methodology" was a joke.

If there is a Cardinal rule to benchmarking, it's this: Make sure the systems are similarly, if not identically, configured. This includes things like hard disk rotational speed (never addressed in the PM article); Front Side Bus (FSB) speed (again, ignored by the article); memory speed/latency (another omission); and so on. Just saying the system has "2GB of DDR2" and a "160GB hard disk" doesn't cut it. Subtle variations in system specification can have a big impact on performance. You need to be precise in your disclosure or the tests are worthless.
There was also only minimal disclosure of the software stack. For example, did the Vista systems have Service Pack 1 installed? Also, was it a clean install? Or was the system still full of the 100+ layers of crapware that every PC vendor seems to bundle these days? How about driver revisions? Vendor-specific tweaks or fixes?

Again, saying it was running Vista is meaningless. Unlike Apple, the Windows universe revolves around a diverse ecosystem of complementary components. When and how these components are integrated, including which drivers are employed and how the overall software stack is constructed, can have major consequences for performance.
They're Mac enthusiasts, and this skewed the coverage. I know, I know, I'm going to get flamed to damnation for this statement. However, if you take a moment to look at the situation from a PC enthusiast's perspective, you'll begin to notice the well-defined Apple bias permeating the article.

For starters, when specifying the PC test bed, they chose form over function. While not unique to Apple enthusiasts, the bias toward good design over raw performance has always been a hallmark of the "enlightened" RDF (Reality Distortion Field) crowd. That any competent PC buyer could assemble a more powerful, capable bundle that would run rings around both test beds -- and do so for half the stated price -- is lost on them. They looked at their iMacs and saw an all-in-one design. Then they looked at the PC landscape and chose its corollary. Never mind that the system they chose was a piece of crap iMac knock-off designed to woo would-be Macolytes at the local Best Buy. It looked the way they thought a computer should look: Sleek. Refined. Artistic.

Then there's the obsession with startup times. Apparently, Mac users spend a lot of time booting their systems (instability?). Regardless, the fact that Vista boots like molasses is irrelevant: Most users don't power their systems off anymore anyway -- they soft-power them into a suspend/hibernation state and resume them when they need to use them again. This focus on startup times shows that the reviewers are out of touch with how the PC world thinks and works, which is not surprising since they're obviously Mac enthusiasts masquerading as "objective" reviewers. Typical.

In the end, it doesn't really matter that much to me since no competent system buyer will be taking their cues from Popular Mechanics. All of which leads us to the true audience for the PM article: Mac enthusiasts, a crowd so myopic and delusional that they have nothing better to do than read about how smart they are for buying a Mac in the first place. The folks at Popular Mechanics told us so!

Posted by Randall Kennedy on April 21, 2008 10:17 AM

April 16, 2008 | Comments: (0)

Why I'm glad I don't work for Microsoft

Speechless. That's how I felt when I came across this latest gem from the bowels of Microsoft's sales & marketing organization. Never mind that they've completely dishonored "The Boss" - this whole production is an abomination! Who on earth thought this would be a good idea?

I actually feel sad for the Microsoft folks who received this thing in their inbox. It's hard to take pride in your work when your employer talks down to you like this. I've seen better motivational pitches at an Amway convention.

Perhaps Microsoft thinks its employees live in a vacuum. After all, anyone even remotely current with industry trends knows that Vista is a flop, and that SP1 has done little to turn the tide of rejections. Don't these folks read the news?

I understand that Microsoft wants to "rally its troops" in light of the Vista debacle. But producing a video that insults their intelligence (and the many fans of the "Tramp-in-Chief") seems an odd way to go about it.

Let's hope the folks from "MAD TV" are watching. This would make for a killer skit - right up there with the "iRack" spoof from a while back.

"Baby, we were born to run...away from corny motivational videos!"

Posted by Randall Kennedy on April 16, 2008 02:47 PM

April 08, 2008 | Comments: (0)

Bitter fruit and broken promises: My "hackintosh" odyssesy (and more)

A week ago I solicited suggestions on which version of *nix to try next. I'd been "jonesing" for a new OS experience, and it made sense to see how some of my previous choices had evolved during my six month hiatus. So, after collecting a long and varied list of possible targets, I set out on my odyssey to find out if any of the current crop of *nix variants could serve as a full-time replacement for my satisfying - yet entirely unsupported - Windows 2008 "Workstation" configuration.

Since I was starting from scratch, I decided to go with the most radical suggestion first: Turn my Dell XPS M1710 notebook into a "hackintosh" by installing OS X. I've always been curious about OS X - just not enough to spring for a new notebook. So the "hackintosh" route seemed like a nice alternative.

My previous attempts at creating such a beast, using a modified OS X 10.4.9 "Tiger" installation DVD, had all been unsuccessful. Either the OS wouldn't install at all or, when it did, the video was so distorted that I couldn't continue. I was, therefore, quite pleased to discover that an intrepid group of "hackintoshers" had put together a new 10.5.1 "Leopard" version of the modified OS X DVD image (i.e. the "iATKOS" DVD) . This new compilation promised a "one step" installation process as well as better device support for the myriad non-Apple hardware peripherals that a "hackintosher" might encounter.

Unfortunately, the experience didn't quite live up to the hype. Yes, I was able to successfully install OS X 10.5.1. And yes, the video worked reliably on the first try (using the "NVinject" kext). However, I ran into all sorts of problems with the OS X kernel and its interactions with my dual-core T7200 CPU (lots of pointer stuttering and delayed keyboard/mouse input).

I was able to work around this issue by disabling dual-core support in the Dell's BIOS (thus turning my notebook into a single-core system), but it seemed like a kludge fix at best. Then, when I realized that my notebook's Intel 3945ABG wireless adapter was not supported (and likely never would be since Apple doesn't use this device in any of its models), I knew it was the beginning of the end for my "hackintosh" odyssey. Since I also could not get my Broadcom wired Ethernet adapter to work (making searching for a solution online nearly impossible), I finally threw-in the towel and ditched OS X in favor of the next OS on my list: PC-BSD 1.5.

When I first tried PC-BSD (version 1.4) last fall I found an OS that did a fairly good job of masking the complexities of the underlying BSD UNIX. Unfortunately, spotty device support (that annoying wireless card again) ended my experiment prematurely. So when I heard that the PC-BSD folks had improved wireless support with version 1.5, I became optimistic that my next foray into BSD-land would be more successful.

Foolish me! Yes, PC-BSD is still quasi-user-friendly (the installer was a breeze). And yes, they've put some "spit and polish" on their KDE-derived UI. However, my Intel 3945ABG adapter *still* is not supported. Given how prevalent the adapter is (i.e. part of the whole "Centrino" package) this is simply unacceptable. All major Linux distros have gotten this right a long time ago. The PC-BSD folks need to wake up and smell the modern hardware.

Note: I even attempted to compile my own driver using the "ndisgen" utility and the Windows XP driver for my card. Now the OS won't boot (gets past the boot loader menu and then restarts - over and over). Add to this the bizarre behavior of the accelerated nVidia drivers (screen will suddenly freak out and become unreadable, forcing me to hit the Big Red Switch) and I decided that, for my purposes at least, PC-BSD is still not quite "fully baked." Perhaps when they move to the BSD 7.x base things will get better.

Two attempts, two failures. Maybe I've gotten soft. I've become so used to the stellar device support under Windows that I no longer have the patience to tinker endlessly with my OS. Even Windows NT 3.1 wasn't this hard!

Anyway, time to move on. Next up: Ubuntu 8.04 "Hardy Heron." I just hope they've fixed that showstopper ACPI bug!

Posted by Randall Kennedy on April 8, 2008 09:53 AM

April 01, 2008 | Comments: (0)

Greed, politics, and CanSecWest

I've been following with amusement the developments coming out of the recent CanSecWest hacking contest. While most of the headlines have focused on the "quick death" of the MacBook Air system on day two, the really juicy bits didn't emerge until later in the event. In fact, it wasn't until after the Vista box fell to an Adobe Flash exploit that the fur really began to fly.

The opening salvo was fired, unsurprisingly, by the Mac community. In his RoughlyDrafted blog, Daniel Eran Dilger questioned the validity of the event while throwing mud in all directions: at the winning hacker for his public hostility towards Mac OS X, at the event coordinators for sensationalizing the Mac's downfall, and at the FOSS community for not wanting to tarnish its sacred cow (Ubuntu) publicly.

The aspersions were indeed cast far and wide. And while the hyperbole was thick and the exchanges quite heated, three themes managed to emerge from Mr. Dilger's ranting (and from the various blogospheric responses):

That hacking has become so commercialized, top "black hats" would rather sell their exploits on the black market (to spammers, et al) than waste time in a stupid contest.

That the lack of Linux hacks was the result of a predominance of "Torvaldian fanbois" among the hacker elite (no real surprise there).

That Mac OS X fans are (still) the sorest of losers.

The whole, sad ConSecWest charade reminded of why I hate these cross-platform comparisons. The playing field is never truly level, the rules tend to be overly broad and easily circumvented, and nearly everyone has some hidden agenda -- even the supposedly impartial event coordinators (in this case, sensationalism).

I thought the specter of Linux fans closing ranks to inflate their platform's image was particularly telling. That several participants later admitted (privately) to deliberately ignoring several promising bug-related attack vectors (including a Flash-based exploit similar to the one that took out Vista) simply shows that you can't believe a word these FOSS people say about anything. They'll lie through their teeth if it helps to gloss over the imperfections within their anointed distro.

In the end, the only platform without a champion was Windows Vista, which is not surprising since nobody will admit to being a fan anymore (all the cool kids have jumped ship to "Workstation" 2008). You know a platform is on its way out when it falls prey to a pervasive, and thus potentially devastating, hack and nobody says a word in its defense.

The problem with CanSecWest is that it's too broadly focused. Here's hoping that next year they kick out the whiners (Mac fans) and losers (Vista fans) and just let the Linux/FOSS freaks have at it. Because nothing brings out the crazies like a nice distro-on-distro cage match.

Posted by Randall Kennedy on April 1, 2008 03:00 AM

January 07, 2008 | Comments: (0)

"Flyback" to the future

Those who follow my online ranting know how disappointed I've been with Microsoft's Vista Backup utility. Here you have this technically superior (to Apple's "Time Machine") backup solution that is hamstrung by the fact that it's most powerful feature (shadow copy integration) is buried in the bowels of an OS (Vista). Add to this myriad questionable design decisions (e.g. arbitrary file inclusion/exclusion lists) and you end up with one of those classic Microsoft "could've been, might've been" moments.

Now, to add insult to injury, the zealots on the FOSS side of the fence are working on their own "Time Machine" alternative. Dubbed "Flyback," this GUI wrapper for the Linux rsnapshot utility is rapidly maturing and will likely pass Vista Backup as the second most usable integrated OS backup utility. In fact, "Flyback" is progressing so well that the developers have time to indulge in little side projects, like a promised "3D" effect for restoring archived files/folders (i.e. a nice "slap in the face" to Apple).

All of which begs the question: What the hell is wrong with Microsoft these days? It seems like every time their R&D folks come up with something unique and powerful (volume snapshots), some idiot further down the program management chain steps in and cripples it -- leaving those of us who pay attention to such things scratching our heads in disbelief.

"What could've been, what should've been" indeed!

Posted by Randall Kennedy on January 7, 2008 08:31 AM

October 31, 2007 | Comments: (0)

What's Apple So Afraid Of?

What a bunch of "Scaredy Cats!"

That's what went through my mind as I read today's headline about Apple and Mac OS X virtualization. As David Marshall noted in his InfoWorld Virtualization Report blog, It seems the company is finally "loosening-up" and letting customers run OS X inside of virtual machines (previously, this was a impossible due to various clauses in the OS X EULA). However, the new capability comes with some rather draconian restrictions attached:

1. You can only virtualize Mac OS X Server. Virtualizing Mac OS X clients is still a no-no.
2. You have to run everything on Apple logoed hardware - no leveraging that Dell or HP box.
3. And, of course, you need to buy a license for each virtualized instance of OS X Server (duh!).

Restriction #3 makes some sense - if you use it, pay for it. And even #2 could be justified, if for no other reason than they're greedy (it's still a hardware company, after all). However, restriction #1 left me scratching my head. Why is Apple so hell-bent on keeping customers from virtualizing their Mac clients?

It certainly can't be a profit issue. Margins for OS X sales have been pegged at 85% or more by most analysts. That's higher than any other Apple product, including the various "i-thingies" (40-55%). With those kind of numbers, you'd think they'd want to sell as many copies as possible.

No, the only reasonable explanation for why Apple is so reluctant to let its customers virtualize OS X clients is that they're afraid.

Apple is afraid that, if they allow virtualization, they will be tacitly endorsing the idea that the Mac OS and Mac hardware are separate entities. And once they do that - once they allow customers to start thinking about OS X running in non-Mac hardware environments (event virtual ones) - they open the floodgates to all sorts of insane requests.

Why, customers might even start demanding that they be allowed to run OS X directly on non-Apple client hardware! And if that were to happen, Apple would have to vastly expand its QA and testing programs.

It's easy to build a fairly stable OS when your hardware deployment target is limited to a couple of dozen possible configurations (and even then, they still don't get it right all of the time). However, when you expand that target to include the myriad permutations that dot the Intel-based PC landscape, the task of making a stable, reliable OS that performs well and meets the majority of customer requirements becomes a bit of a challenge.

Just ask Microsoft.

Posted by Randall Kennedy on October 31, 2007 11:01 PM

Technology White Papers

InfoWorld Technology Marketplace

» Technology White Papers Library

Technology White Papers by Topic

Technology White Papers E-mail Alert