- The mythical "Vista application"
- Intervention: How to salvage Windows 7
- Desktop Windows: Is it time to "cut and run?"
- Windows 7 gets all "touchy-feely"
- How Unix politics are killing OS innovation
- Streaming Office: Death knell for Google Apps?
- Note to Popular Mechanics: Leave the PC reviewing to us professionals
- "Beryl" comes to Vista
- Why I'm glad I don't work for Microsoft
- Solving the legacy Windows compatibility puzzle
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 10, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Intervention: How to salvage Windows 7
I had an interesting conversation this past week with Ben Rudolph, former marketing guru at Parallels and now a member of the Microsoft Windows 7 team. Apparently, my recent pronouncement of death for his new charge struck a nerve. In addition to setting up a flurry of conference calls with his fellow team members, Ben picked my brain a bit about what I felt they needed to do/say to salvage their next generation desktop OS.
Always willing to interject myself into others’ business, I offered the following "pledge" points for Microsoft to ponder:
- Performance. Pledge that Windows 7 will perform as well as, if not better than, Windows Vista on identical hardware. Show the industry that you can do more than create bloated software. Show us that you can be disciplined when you need to be, that you can write clean, efficient code that doesn't leave us wondering where all the GHz have gone.
You've already stated that Windows 7 will be based on the Vista core. It shouldn't be too hard to squeeze a few more optimizations from that battle-hardened NT kernel of yours while also holding the line on the "cycle creep" that doomed 7's predecessor. Right now, this is Job No. 1 for Microsoft. - Compatibility. Pledge that that Windows 7 will deliver a better migration experience than Windows Vista. After performance, the perceived lack of seamless backwards compatibility is the most pressing issue for IT fence sitters. Encouraging companies to bite the bullet now with Vista because Windows 7 won't help them is not the message you want to be sending.
Leverage some of that slick new legacy application integration technology you've acquired (SoftGrid, Kidaro) to help smooth over the rough spots. There's really no excuse for providing anything less than flawless Win32, COM/ATL/MFC and down level .Net application support, even with UAC enabled. You have all the tools in your portfolio. Time to put them to use. - Usability. Pledge to take all those powerful-yet-buried technologies and bring them to the surface with Windows 7. Start by understanding what's relevant to IT and then focusing your UI development energies accordingly. For example: Previous Versions, a more robust driver model, and deeply-integrated Windows Search? Relevant to IT. Aero (including Flip 3D), Media Center, and the Windows Sidebar? Not so much. Yet which features got the lion's share of PR when Vista launched?
Stop trying to "out-Mac the Mac" on the UI whiz-bang front. Just expose the myriad compelling technologies you already have under the hood and let the IT community be the judge. It's telling when you see the industry media tripping over themselves to lavish praise on something like "Time Machine" when Windows has been doing the same thing better, and with more data storage flexibility, for years.
Finally, Microsoft needs to communicate better, and by this I don't mean just under-promising. The "cone of silence" around Windows 7 has to end. The recent, anticlimactic comments regarding Windows 7's architecture and the subsequent misguided attempts to push Vista at 7's expense have set off a panic in the IT community. Now it's time to open up and start explaining why not reinventing the wheel is a good thing and how, without a kernel overhaul, you can still improve (faster, more compatible, easier to use) on the Vista experience.
It's not too late for Microsoft to salvage Windows 7. As I've stated in the past, Moore's Law is on their side. If they can deliver a richer, more compatible version of Windows Vista, without causing additional code bloat (and maybe wringing some extra throughput out of what's carried over from Vista), they have a decent chance of winning back some of the IT shops they alienated along the way.
Posted by Randall Kennedy on June 10, 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
May 28, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Windows 7 gets all "touchy-feely"
What a difference a week makes! Just last Friday I was dissecting Microsoft's latest pro-Vista marketing spin and lamenting the lack of corroborating evidence to my "ready for Windows 7" missive over at the Windows Sentinel blog. There must have been something in the Kool-Aid at that annual Memorial Day picnic, because when the employees returned their previously hog-tied tongues were suddenly loosed.
First, there was the interview with Steve Sinofsky, in which he emphasized how Windows 7 would build on the foundation laid with Vista. Then came the Windows Vista team blog posting by Chris Flores stating that there would be no "new kernel" in Windows 7 (sorry "MinWin" fans) and that their goal was to run on the "recommended hardware" they specified for Vista.
[ Read more on the Windows 7 touch-screen features in our news story. ]
In other words, I was right. About Windows 7. About its Vista underpinnings. About everything. My detractors (and by now you are legion) may commence with the crow consumption.
But the "pièce de résistance" had to be the Windows 7 "demo" conducted during a Walt Mossberg/Kara Swisher interview with Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer. Though the video (scroll down the page a bit) of the demo portion of the event is a bit grainy, you can at least make out some aspects of the cool Surface-derived UI direction that Microsoft is taking with Windows 7. Someone else mentioned seeing a Mac OS X-like "dock" in the video, however, I couldn't make it out -- though I did glimpse a couple of objects that seemed similar to the "wheely" things you can see in this collection of supposedly leaked Windows 7 screen shots.
Bottom Line: Nothing revolutionary -- just a logical integration of multi-touch principles into the core Windows interface. More important, it's all stuff that you could build easily using the Vista/2008 code base as your foundation, which is encouraging from a "can they really pull this off?" perspective.
What we've learned this week:
- Windows 7 will be built upon the foundation laid down with Windows Vista. No real surprise here. I've been saying this for months (though it's always nice to be proven right).
- "MinWin" and other "academic exercises" are just that: research projects. The real Windows 7 kernel is a natural evolution of the Vista kernel, including seamless support for Vista device drivers. After the debacle of Vista's early driver compatibility woes, this is a good thing.
- Microsoft's Next Big Thing (NBT) will be touch ... and voice, and digital ink, and all forms of alternative input metaphors. Combined with the next generation of touch-enabled PCs, this could be a game changer.
After 20 years of mice and keyboards (and all manner of ergonomic tweaks to make them less crippling to our weary hands), I think the human race is ready for a change. Multi-touch could be the next "killer app," the one cool, must-have feature that drives Windows 7 adoption. I know I want it!
Have the floodgates finally opened? Has Microsoft finally turned the corner on Vista in order to focus full-time on promoting Windows 7? Maybe yes, maybe no. There's still way too much we don't know about the next Windows -- like how the UI will change for us "touch-challenged" users with older PCs. However, if Microsoft continues on its current path of revealing tidbits though myriad outlets, we'll have plenty to dissect in the coming weeks. Stay tuned!
Posted by Randall Kennedy on May 28, 2008 12:18 AM
May 07, 2008 | Comments: (0)
How Unix politics are killing OS innovation
It's frustrating. Each time I think I've found a viable long-term replacement for my Windows development and testing environment, along comes some stumbling block to trip me up. And while these hurdles are mostly technical, the "root" causes (pun intended) are almost always political in nature.
Case in point: My various bouts with the disease known as "Ubuntu-itis." Every six months or so I get the urge to jump ship and join with the great hippie masses swaying to the open source beat. But then "the man" has to come and spoil the fun. All that finger pointing about the ACPI bug -- nVidia pointing to the kernel team pointing back at nVidia, with me pointing at Canonical for failing to sort the whole mess out. It's like trying to decipher that Battlestar Galactica "Last Supper" picture: Everyone's got a knife out for someone else (FYI, I'm leaning towards the doe-eyed Dualla as the final Cylon).
This week it's OpenSolaris, the new kid on the FOSS block that may not be quite as "open" as Sun would like us to believe. That's because, despite public statements to the contrary, Sun may not "own" the Unix IP in the way that most of us think of ownership. In fact, it's looking more and more like the only true IP holder is Novell, the same company that just got done grinding SCO's bones to make its bread. If they get hungry, might they turn on Sun? How much damage could Novell inflict if Sun decides to go ahead with a GPL-3 license for OpenSolaris and the folks from Provo object? More importantly, would you feel comfortable adopting an OS platform that may get litigated out of existence before its first birthday?
It's a shame because I actually like OpenSolaris. The 2008.5 release is polished, easy to install/configure and seems chock full of promise. During my own preliminary testing, the Gnome-based UI had me feeling right at home, though re-inventing the package manager wheel seemed a waste. Most of my devices were supported (I tested on a Dell OptiPlex 745 instead of my usual XPS notebook), including such esoteric stuff as the bay-mounted 12-in-1 memory card reader (Memory Stick Pro Duo support -- yeah!). Even VirtualBox seemed to work correctly, which isn't surprising since Sun now owns the code base.
Overall, it was far more pleasant experience than my various PC-BSD misadventures. I got the sense that Sun actually knows what they're doing with Unix, which makes the thought of Novell stomping this nascent Linux challenger into oblivion that much more disturbing. Here's hoping that OpenSolaris survives and serves to keep the increasingly insular Linux community -- including the "hear no evil, see no evil" crowd that controls the kernel -- honest.
Posted by Randall Kennedy on May 7, 2008 12:10 AM
May 01, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Streaming Office: Death knell for Google Apps?
It's the holy grail of punditry: You make a bold, unconventional prediction that's way out in front of an emerging trend, then get to gloat as that prediction comes true. In my case, the prediction involved Microsoft's recently (at the time) acquired SoftGrid technology. I saw the acquisition as a clear sign that Microsoft was gearing up to deliver a subscriptions-based, hosted licensing model for Microsoft Office.
Of course, not everyone agreed with me. In fact, the CTO of a key Microsoft competitor all but dismissed the possibility on technical grounds. SoftGrid, he said, was an "inside the firewall" technology, and Microsoft would be hard pressed to make it work over the web.
Fast forward to today and we now hear that Microsoft intends to do exactly what the "nay-sayers" said they wouldn't: Use its newly re-branded Microsoft Application Virtualization (MAV) technology to deliver Office and other traditional "fat client" applications as subscriptions-based services, with the Internet/web (along with some of those massive data centers the company has been building) providing the distribution infrastructure.
Now it's time for another bold prediction: Streaming Office will clobber Google Apps, eventually driving the search giant out of the hosted applications business altogether.
Consider the following advantages to a Streaming Office suite:
- Full Office Functionality - MAV encapsulates the entire sequenced application. This isn't some "web-based" Office knock-off. It's the real deal: Microsoft Office in all it's sophisticated, class-leading, standard setting (flaunting?), enterprise desktop-dominating glory.
- True Offline Operation - Though Streaming Office may initially come to you over the wire, the actual application bits get cached locally by the MAV agent. This is the same MAV agent that hosts the virtualized application runtime, so offline operation is entirely seamless. As any veteran SoftGrid user can attest, it's as good as - if not better than - having Office installed locally.
- It's the Future of Windows Application Deployment - Everyone knows that Microsoft needs to "fix" the Windows runtime environment. All of that legacy application baggage is starting to drag down the client, making each new Windows version "fatter" and more kludge-like. I believe that MAV is one solution Microsoft may be mulling over as a means to preserve backwards compatibility while they tighten the native runtime so that only well-behaved code (including the MAV runtime) can execute.
With this kind of R&D investment you can be sure that Streaming Office - which is a byproduct of MAV's continued evolution - will be a high quality product and receive tremendous, cross-divisional support (just like Office does today).
Faced with a decision between a watered-down, limited, web-dependent pseudo-suite and the full power and richness of Microsoft Office, users will flock to the Microsoft camp - especially if the company prices a "pay as you go" Office aggressively. And then it will be "game over" for Google Apps and its ilk.
Just remember: You read it here first!
Posted by Randall Kennedy on May 1, 2008 11:23 AM
April 21, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Note to Popular Mechanics: Leave the PC reviewing to us professionals
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 20, 2008 | Comments: (0)
I have to admit, one of the most attractive (to me at least) features of the Linux desktop has always been the famous Beryl/Compiz 3D "cube" plug-in. I first dismissed the feature as pure "eye candy," however, after several months experimenting with various Linux distros, I came to appreciate the simple beauty and practicality of a 3-dimensional workspace. The ability to assign windows to different "surfaces" - and then navigate between them intuitively - made me more productive by allowing me to "un-clutter" my desktop.
So you can imagine my delight in discovering that I can create roughly the same experience under Windows, using a simple 3rd party utility called CubeDesktop:
Figure 1 - The 3D "Cube" View
With CubeDesktop, I can create up to six virtual desktops and navigate between them using mouse gestures or keyboard shortcuts. The desktops can be wrapped around the aforementioned cube, around a "cylinder" like structure, flipped through via an OSX-like "cover flow" type view or spread out across a lighting table style "explorer" view. Each view is hardware-accelerated, providing for a clean, responsive navigational experience.
Figure 2 - The 3D "Roll" View
The "basic" version (9.95 Euros = ~$16 USD) supports only the 3D Cube look, while the "pro" version (19.95 Euros - ~$32 USD) adds the Roll, Flip, Carousel and Explorer looks as well as the Windows "Exposer" - a Mac OS X "expose" like tool for navigating between multiple applications within a single desktop.
Figure 3 - The Window "Exposer" View
Other useful "pro" features include the ability to password-protect individual desktops and to create rules defining specific desktops for specific applications.
Figure 4 - The 3D "Flip" View
I installed CubeDesktop under Windows "Workstation" 2008 x64. Aside from a few usability quirks (e.g. notification area icons in one virtual desktop not retaining their links to the corresponding application window in another desktop), the solution seemed stable. One feature - an icon management panel for controlling which desktops get which icons - was non-functional under 64-bit versions. But otherwise, CubeDesktop worked as advertised - and with a level of stability and "polish" I found lacking in competing solutions from Otaku and others.
Of course, the big question is whether or not it's worth shelling out $30+ USD just to gain some fancy virtual desktop effects.
If you're a long-term "Beryl" cube addict like me it's a "no-brainer:" I'm way more productive with multiple desktops, and I find non-3D solutions counterintuitive. However, if you can do without the effects (which mostly add intuitiveness at the cost of higher resource consumption and lower overall functionality), you can achieve the same general productivity result using any number of freeware 2D virtual desktop solutions (Dexpot is a particularly attractive option, as is the open-source VirtuaWin). And you can reproduce a very "expose-like" effect using the Instant Viewer application in Microsoft's free (for Microsoft Mouse owners) IntelliPoint software.
But don't be mistaken: None of these comes close to the pure "cool" factor of spinning that cube...while still under Windows!
Posted by Randall Kennedy on April 20, 2008 11:03 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 15, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Solving the legacy Windows compatibility puzzle
There's been a lot of chatter lately about how Microsoft needs to start over with Windows. Many point to the (NT) code base's 16-year history and how the need to maintain backward compatibility is hampering efforts to move the platform forward. According to these critics, a clean break is necessary in order to stop the kind of bloatware madness that so crippled Windows Vista. Dump the creaking legacy that is the Win32 API/ATL/MFC, they say, and solve the compatibility riddle through VM technology.
While I can appreciate the logic behind these assertions, I don't agree with the proposed remedy. For starters, the inferred replacement for these outmoded APIs is Microsoft .Net. As those who are familiar with .Net programming will attest, so-called managed code runs like a slug in a molasses bath -- a least on the client side of the fence (I've personally had success with .Net for server application development). Convincing developers to dump tried and true -- if somewhat anachronistic -- programming models in favor of a fatter, slower runtime is even harder than it sounds.
Then there is the issue of application fidelity. Despite advancements in VM technology -- most notably, support for accelerated 3-D graphics in VMware Workstation 6.5 -- the fact remains that running legacy applications in a virtual machine is far from ideal. In addition to the sizable overhead (several hundred megabytes of RAM to house the applications and their supporting OS images), you lose the seamless integration of a natively executing Windows program. Popular workflow functionality, such as COM/OLE automation, becomes nearly impossible to implement across VM boundaries. Even simple tasks, such as dragging and dropping a data file onto an application window, take on new levels of complexity. No matter how cleverly disguised, these virtual walls of isolation will simply aggravate users who are accustomed to a consistent operational experience.
It would seem that Microsoft is faced with a dilemma. On the one hand, it's being called upon to move the Windows platform forward by eliminating the compatibility baggage, while on the other, it's stuck with the expectation that Windows will somehow continue supporting legacy applications, most likely through virtual machine technology. But is VM compatibility -- with its inherent shortcomings -- the only option?
Fortunately, the answer is no. There is another compatibility avenue that Microsoft might consider: application virtualization. Instead of building in a complex VM compatibility box, Microsoft could simply tweak its SoftGrid-derived Microsoft Application Virtualization (MAV) technology to provide a controlled runtime environment in which to execute legacy applications.
Here's how such a solution might work:
- Microsoft would integrate the MAV client and Application Sequencer tool with the base Windows OS image as a compatibility subsystem -- much like it provided OS/2 and POSIX support in the past.
- When a legacy application installation request is detected, Windows would fire up the Sequencer subsystem and capture the installation to an MAV image. The process could be further buttressed through the inclusion of an extensible compatibility library of Sequencer tweaks and so forth.
- The resulting application will still run in a virtualized state, but without the overhead and hard boundaries of a traditional virtual machine.
Such an application could respond to shell events (drag and drop, context menu selections), interact with other applications via COM/OLE, and generally preserve the fidelity of a native application -- all without mucking up the file system and Registry hives or otherwise creating the kind of conflicts/security holes that the "clean break" advocates like to squawk about.
It's a best-of-both-worlds scenario, one that would allow Microsoft to isolate troublesome legacy applications (or those from ISVs that still have not abandoned the old model) and actively evolve the native Windows runtime without concern for breaking the legacy application base or saddling users with an imperfect VM-based solution. The company has all the pieces. Let' see if it's smart enough to put them together in time to salvage the Windows platform.
Posted by Randall Kennedy on April 15, 2008 03:00 AM
April 09, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Burned by Acrobat and Windows Update...on the same day!
I'm starting to hate Windows Update. No matter how many times I try to disable the Automatic Updates feature it somehow manages to re-enable itself, often with disastrous results.
Case in point: This week's "Patch Tuesday" batch of updates for Server 2008. I went to manually check for the updates and force a download only to discover that they were already 95% complete - this despite the fact that I had very deliberately disabled Automatic Updates when I first installed Server 2008 as a "Workstation" OS. Worse still, once the download had completed I started getting those "nag" screens about how I needed to reboot my PC, etc., to complete the updates.
Since I was in the middle of working on something, I clicked the "Postpone" button. When the "nag" screen appeared again, I reset the "Reminder" interval to 4 hours (the default is 10 minutes) and again clicked the "Postpone" button. I figured by then I'd be done with my day (it was already late evening) at which point the system-initiated reboot could proceed unhindered by my constant interference.
Unfortunately, I never got the chance to execute my plan. A few minutes after clicking the "Postpone" button a second time, Windows decided that enough was enough and proceeded forcibly reboot my system without my consent - this despite the fact that I was still actively typing at the keyboard! I was left to watch helplessly as my unfinished web posting disappeared in a blur of closing windows and fading UI effects.
After a longer-than-usual boot cycle (due to the large number of updates being applied), I finally got to log back in and assess the damage. To its credit, Windows tried to ease the pain by re-opening some of the applications that had been running before it so rudely intervened. However, nothing could bring-back my now vaporized web posting. I then checked my system's Windows Update settings and, lo and behold, it had been reset to Automatic again. I've since disabled the entire Windows Update service in Control Panel. I can only hope that'll be enough to slay this monster once and for all.
They say that calamities travel in packs, so it was no real surprise when, shortly after my system was forcibly rebooted, it hung solid. The culprit: Adobe Acrobat Reader. I had noticed for some time that, whenever I opened a PDF file, my mouse pointer would mysteriously "disappear," only to "reappear" just as mysteriously a few seconds later. I chalked it up to some minor flakiness in Adobe's rendering engine. The bug seemed harmless enough - until I made the mistake of actually moving my mouse to try and resurrect the pointer.
Suffice to say that Windows Server 2008 hung-up quite nicely at that point. In addition to the missing pointer, my keyboard was now dead. I tried disconnecting/reconnecting the mouse dongle (I use a Microsoft Wireless Notebook Laser Mouse 7000), pressing CTRL-ALT-DEL, the works. I finally realized that I was in fact screwed when the system's "soft" power button didn't respond (normally it should trigger a graceful shutdown). I ended up having to execute the infamous "ACPI override" technique (hold down the power button for 5 seconds or more) in order kill the beast.
My next stop - after waiting through another painful Windows reboot cycle - was Google. A quick search on the term "Adobe Acrobat disappearing cursor" brought up a host of message board complaints about this very same phenomenon: The cursor going missing during PDF loading, and sometimes never coming back, leaving the user with a locked-up desktop.
I'd like to assign sole blame to Adobe for the bug (I've since dumped Reader in favor of Foxit's free alternative), but the fact is that no application should be able to lock-up the Windows desktop in this fashion - at least not since the mass migration from DOS/Windows to the Windows NT code base. As those familiar with early NT design parameters will attest, a major robustness selling point was the introduction of asynchronous, per-process input queues for mouse and keyboard I/O. In fact, this was one of the marketing bullets used by Microsoft when pitching NT as a competitor to OS/2. The latter used a shared input queue model that was susceptible to lockups from a misbehaved application. NT's model was more reliable, though it did wreck havoc with window focus assignment in certain instances.
Frankly, I thought we were beyond this sort of thing with Windows. However, given the amount of "kludging" that's gone into the code base since Microsoft "unified" its desktop offerings under Windows XP, I wouldn't be surprised if they compromised this feature in the name of some consumer-focused requirement, like improving video game input throughput under DirectX.
Regardless, it's sad to see my once robust NT reduced to a quivering mass of bloated Vista hacks and compromises. And since I normally run Windows Server 2008 as my desktop, this latest crash does not bode well for Microsoft's enterprise reputation. After all, nobody should be able to take-down a multi-million dollar server farm simply by loading a PDF document at the system console.
Posted by Randall Kennedy on April 9, 2008 12:55 AM
April 04, 2008 | Comments: (0)
This week, the blogosphere has been chock full of ranting about Windows XP's impending demise. The confirmation by Microsoft that Windows XP will cease to exist as a commercial product at the end of June has triggered all kinds of commentary, including at least one exhortation to just "let XP die, already!"
The problem with this logic is that it assumes there is a viable alternative. Unfortunately, Windows Vista is not it, a fact attested to by the OS' meager 6 percent installed base in the enterprise. And while Windows Server 2008 has proven to be a formidable workstation OS, such a non-standard configuration will never achieve mainstream desktop status.
This leaves the typical Windows IT shop with few options. They can jump ship and try a competing platform, like OS X, UNIX or Linux; or they can try to stick with Windows XP until something better (Windows 7) comes along.
As I've shown, you can indeed skip Vista without any long-term repercussions. By doing so you'll save time, money and resources - all of which can then be applied to more pressing issues, like improving end-user productivity (i.e. what happens when every other new CPU cycle isn't being chewed-up by DRM and excessive code bloat).
Simply declaring XP "dead" won't change the IT community's opinion of Vista anymore than artificially delaying critical Windows XP bug fixes (i.e. Service Pack 3) will magically transform Vista from unwanted "bloat-ware" into "must have" upgrade. The market has spoken. The damage is done. The betrayal is complete.
Instead of trying to ram Vista down our throats, Microsoft should face facts and start thinking about how it can rebuild all those bridges they burned along the way. A good starting point would be allowing us to continue purchasing new systems with Windows XP on them. That, plus engaging us early in the planning and development of Windows 7, would go a long way towards appeasing the Windows faithful.
But simply pulling the rug out from under us - without providing a viable alternative - is not the way to treat your loyal customers. In fact, that's how you turn them into disloyal customers - and create the opening that your ultimate successor uses to take down your empire.
Posted by Randall Kennedy on April 4, 2008 03:24 PM
March 28, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Windows Search 4.0 preview: first impressions
I just finished downloading and installing the Windows Search 4.0 Preview and I must say I'm impressed by the results. File system searches are now blazingly fast (at least within indexed folders), while preview images of even complex documents pop-up almost instantly. Even Outlook seems to have gotten a speed boost. Searching for an object using the All Mail Items option is no longer a coffee-break-inducing endeavor.
Overall, it's a major improvement over the integrated desktop search in Vista and Server 2008 (it updates them seamlessly), and it also serves as a nice upgrade for users of Windows Desktop Search under XP. There's even a version for Server 2003 showing that Microsoft still knows how to develop in a platform-independent fashion when the mood strikes them.
Of course, there are areas where Windows Search could be improved. For starters, Microsoft still hasn't provided an inline Preview Pane filter for XPS documents. Adobe provides one for PDF files, and screen shots that are purportedly from the Windows 7 Milestone 1 pre-release seem to show such a filter exists - at least in a future form. Why Microsoft continues to hobble XPS in this manner (anti-trust fears?) is beyond me.
Note: The folks over at MSDN Magazine came up with their own set of "Managed Preview Handlers" early last year as part of an article on the topic of writing such plug-ins for Vista. They include handlers for XPS, ZIP, MSI, CSV, BIN and XAML file types. Definitely worth a look.
Even with the MSDN handler, XPS documents still take way too long to load, especially on the first attempt. Microsoft needs to thoroughly tweak this bit of code if it ever hopes to establish XPS as a viable document interchange standard. That said, the handler does save you the trip to Internet Explorer, which makes the pain of finding and downloading the MSDN solution and accompanying J# redistributable package worth the effort.
And, finally, no Microsoft "upgrade" would be complete without a thorough rehashing of the underlying data store. In this case, it means that your existing search index gets dumped and you have to wait while a new index is built before you can actually search for anything (a time-consuming process for users with large storage needs). But since this is the only real blemish on an otherwise sterling release, I can let it slide.
Bravo, Microsoft, for showing the tangible side of all those Research division dollars. And to think, these are the same folks who brought us "Bob!"
Posted by Randall Kennedy on March 28, 2008 11:10 AM
March 25, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Is Microsoft artificially delaying XP SP3?
It's a valid question. Last week, virtually anyone who was anyone within the SP3 Beta community thought that the release of Service Pack 3 for Windows XP was imminent. InfoWorld even commissioned a lead-out news item on the subject (penned by yours truly) of SP3's arrival.
Now we learn that SP3 has been delayed once again, this time until late April. Up to now, things has been going swimmingly for SP3, with recent builds showing RTM-levels of polish. Then, all of a sudden it's "not ready." No explanation for the delay - just a "failure to launch" when everyone expected it to.
In the meantime, Microsoft is talking-up Vista SP1 in a big way. There are all sorts of quasi-marketing collateral pieces floating around about SP1's impact, how to deploy it, key new features/functions, etc. Microsoft is even offering toll-free installation support for anyone having trouble with the update. Basically, they're pulling out all the stops to make Vista SP1 a success.
To recap: Microsoft delays Windows XP SP3 without explaining why, then puts on a full court press to promote Vista SP1. It doesn't take a genius to see what they're doing here. They've decided to "save Vista's bacon" (delaying XP SP3 might prompt some fence-sitters to take the Vista plunge) at the expense of XP getting a much needed roll-up of critical fixes and patches - great if you're a Vista fan, not so hot if you're an XP shop waiting on the first real Service Pack in nearly 4 years.
In fact, you could say that Microsoft has shown its true colors with its handling of SP3. By delaying the update's release, company executives have made it clear that they're willing to screw-over even their most loyal customers if it helps Microsoft salvage a flagging product.
Note to IT: All those years of dedication to Windows and enthusiasm for the Microsoft brand mean nothing. This company will drop you in a heart-beat if it serves to further its agenda.
I guess I picked a good week to explore my *nix options...
Posted by Randall Kennedy on March 25, 2008 08:27 AM
March 20, 2008 | Comments: (0)
You can never have too many cores
Or be too young. Or too thin. Or too rich.
It's a truism: Ever since the introduction of Windows 2000 Workstation - which was the first mainstream Windows client OS to support Symmetrical Multiprocessing (SMP) - desktop PCs have been in a position to exploit multiple CPUs and/or CPU cores. However, most early users couldn't understand why they might need or even want more than one "brain" in their systems. After all, how fast does Word need to run before you start to see diminishing returns?
Of course, what these early users didn't see (and what many current users still fail to grasp) is the fact that there's more going on under the hood on their PCs than just Word executing a global search/replace. Each new generation of Windows and Office has introduced additional layers of overhead - new services, malware detection, encryption/compression, auto-complete/spell-checking/formatting - that steal CPU cycles from the foreground task: Word, Excel or whatever you're working on.
Back when I was under contract to Intel's Desktop Architecture Labs (DAL), we even had a name for this phenomenon: "Constant Computing." The idea was that, as software complexity grew, the number of "idle" cycles available on a given desktop would (and should) decrease. More complexity = more demand for CPU cycles. This was especially true in enterprise computing environments where a "base" system image usually included several dozen layers of agents, services and background tasks that would run in parallel with the user's day to day application tasks.
Unfortunately, in the Windows 2000 timeframe, dual-core CPUs were still the stuff of fantasy. If you wanted SMP on your desktop you bought a system with two or more discrete CPUs - a cost-prohibitive prospect even today. However, with the introduction of competitively-priced dual-core CPUs came the first mainstream shift to SMP-based computing.
With dual-core (and now quad and even six-core) CPUs, users are finally learning what high-end SMP workstation users have known for years: That having more than one CPU allows Windows to multitask smoother and generally deliver a more responsive experience, even with lots of background services running.
With the number of cores going up (Intel plans to deliver its six-core offerings later this year), chances are that you'll continue to see good foreground performance no matter how much enterprise computing "baggage" gets tacked onto your computing stack. All of which makes statements like "Who would want all those cores?" seem silly. As we've seen with Windows Vista, Microsoft is more than capable of finding a use for available CPU cycles. In fact, given the level of Windows and Office code bloat I've witnessed over the past few years, the better question is: "What will you do without all those cores?"
Bottom Line: You don't need specialized, multi-threaded applications to reap the benefits of SMP support in Windows. If nothing else, those additional CPU cycles will help to offset the code bloat that threatens to bury each new generation of PC hardware. And with Microsoft at the helm, it's a good bet we'll all be wishing Intel would crank-up the cores-per-CPU count even faster.
Posted by Randall Kennedy on March 20, 2008 02:10 AM
March 17, 2008 | Comments: (0)
As if the commotion over Windows "Workstation" 2008 weren't enough, a recent survey of IT shops shows that over 70% of respondents will still be using their "current OS" in 2009. Since the overwhelming majority (92%) of these sites are still running Windows XP, that means that Vista will likely never achieve critical mass in the enterprise.
To those of us working "in the trenches," this really comes as no surprise. Resistance to Vista has been stiffening in recent months, with many shops crying a Roberto Duran-esque "no mas" as they leap off the Wintel treadmill in droves.
[ Tell Microsoft to keep XP available indefinitely. Join the 100,000 who've signed the "Save XP" petition. ]
So, if Vista is doomed, and if IT shops are indeed rejecting the OS en masse, the question has to be: Was Microsoft's new OS dead on arrival?
I asked myself this very question as I was assembling my 10 reasons why it's really OK to stick with XP (It is, honest! See "Death Match: Vista vs. XP" for details). As I thought back through Vista's first year - the struggles with buggy drivers, WGA's invasiveness, the disappointing SP1 - I realized that the writing was indeed on the wall. In fact, many of us who were beta testing Vista back in 2006 quietly expressed our concerns to one another in web forums, chat rooms and the occasional email thread. After all, we were privy to some of the earliest Vista bits, and what we saw disturbed us.
Here was an OS that, from an enterprise IT standpoint, had almost nothing going for it: No major new technologies; no paradigm-shifting architectural changes; nothing to whet a system administrator's appetite. What it did have was layers and layers of consumer-focused baggage: Pervasive DRM plumbing; dubious multimedia prioritization tweaks; OS X-envy driven eye candy. Basically, it was an OS designed to secure Microsoft's seat at the RIAA/MPAA roundtable, and little else.
I'll never forget the day early in 2007 when one of my contacts at a Wall Street trading firm asked me how I liked Windows Vista. I responded with a half-hearted "great," to which he replied: "Really? So tell me why you think we should upgrade."
I was stumped. I couldn't think of a single reason why one of the largest financial institutions in the world - with tens of thousands of desktops and a multi-billion dollar IT budget - should move to Vista from their well-tested, proven Windows XP configuration.
It was a seminal moment for me - the point at which I realized that the vague sense of unease I'd felt early on was in fact my subconscious telling me what I knew to be true all along: Vista was a lame duck; a false hope; a cadaver before it ever hit the operating table.
So, as we start to formulate an epitaph for Windows Vista ("Here lies, in bloated agony, all that's wrong with the Wintel duopoloy"), we must look to the future and hope that Microsoft finally learns from its mistakes.
Windows Vista - 2006-2008 - R.I.P.
Posted by Randall Kennedy on March 17, 2008 10:19 AM
March 12, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Windows "Workstation" 2008 results lead to backlash from Vista zealots
I love irony. After a year of rabidly defending their platform, the Vista zealots are now eating their young. Specifically, they're attacking those of us who've discovered that the core Vista bits run great, just not when packaged as Windows Vista.
In case you've been living under a rock these past few weeks:
It has been discovered that Windows Server 2008 in "desktop" mode (a.k.a. Windows "Workstation" 2008) runs circles around Vista, thus proving that - if they set their minds to it - Microsoft can produce a solid, enterprise-class OS using the Vista code base.
The problem is that Microsoft didn't put this same effort into Vista, resulting in an OS that - whether due to different kernel switches/tweaks or the inclusion of certain DRM layers - is a bloated pig on even modern hardware. To those of us seeking a better "Vista" experience, Windows "Workstation" 2008 is salvation.
Of course, none of this sits well with those in the Vista zealot camp. Some claim that the test results are inaccurate, that Vista and Server 2008 share the same code base and thus cannot perform differently. Others are claiming that the tests were invalid because Server 2008 ships with a much "leaner" default configuration. They say that if you enable all of the "desktop" features on Server 2008 - or vice-versa with Vista - you'll see that they in fact perform comparably.
However, if these people had bothered to read the disclosure part of the test scenario in question, they'd discover that the exo.performance.network researchers did turn on all of the "desktop" features in Server 2008 (Indexing, SuperFetch, Aero, et al). In fact, they afforded Vista every opportunity to perform, and yet it still fell well behind "Workstation" 2008 in a variety of test scenarios.
Note to the Zealots: The numbers are what they are. If you don't believe them, run the tests for yourself (all of the tools used by the xpnet.com research staff are freely available through their web site). Personally, I've yet to encounter a "Workstation" 2008 convert that isn't ecstatic with the results. It's faster. Period.
In the end, I can't help but pity these misguided Vista zealots. As true believers, they've steadfastly defended Vista as being as fast as Microsoft could make it given the level of complexity involved. To now have their benefactor "cut them off at the knees" - by providing evidence (Server 2008) that Vista is, in fact, slower than it needs to be - must be a bitter pill indeed!
Posted by Randall Kennedy on March 12, 2008 04:10 PM
March 10, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Windows "Workstation" 2008: One week later
It's been just over a week since I took the plunge and nuked my Vista SP1 installation in favor of a desktop implementation of Windows Server 2008 (aka Windows "Workstation" 2008). So far, it's been a smooth ride. All of my core applications are working flawlessly, including SQL Server 2005, Visual Studio 2008 and Office 2007. In fact, outside of the multimedia issues I mentioned in my previous entry, I'd be hard pressed to find fault with the experience.
Some observations:
- Visual Studio 2008 flies on "Workstation" 2008. This is no joke. I was ready to throw in the towel on Studio 2008 under Vista. Now, time-consuming operations -- like selecting a complex ASP.Net object on a heavily populated Web form -- that would bog down under Vista just snap right along under 2008. The IDE loads faster, as do my projects. As far as Studio 2008 is concerned, "Workstation" 2008 has delivered an all-around speed boost and has proven to be a real productivity enhancer.
- VMware Workstation also runs better on 2008. I'm a big VM user because I need to test my code against so many different OS permutations. With "Workstation" 2008, juggling even large, multi-gigabyte VMs is a breeze. You immediately sense the performance improvement as even hard-to-virtualize OSes, like Vista x64, run more smoothly. It's made the process of testing my latest revisions that much more pleasant.
- The OS never feels "sluggish." Under Vista, you inevitably reach a point where the OS starts to "slow down." It may be after a day of heavy use or even a week of on-again/off-again (or in the case of my Dell XPS M1710 "notebrick," suspend-again) computing. But eventually you'll feel the need to reboot and start clean. With "Workstation" 2008, I've yet to encounter such a malaise. Whether it's better memory management or simply a more mature, polished code base, "Workstation" 2008 delivers a level of robustness and consistency that Vista can't touch.
Of course, the really bizarre aspect to my "Workstation" 2008 experience is that, from a technical standpoint, it doesn't make sense - or at least, it shouldn't. With the same kernel (as of Vista SP1), the OSes should in fact behave similarly.
To be sure, the Windows Server 2008 kernel is configured differently at boot-up. Different switches are applied to tune the kernel for server duty. In fact, this was the norm with all "NT" client and server releases prior to Windows XP: A shared code base differentiated primarily by boot-time tuning of the kernel image. However, it's hard to fathom how tuning alone could cause what is essentially the same OS to behave so differently in identical workload scenarios.
Something else is going on here - or perhaps isn't going on. Some of my "Workstation" 2008 compatriots have speculated that DRM is to blame, that Windows Server 2008 boots with less of the DRM plumbing than the consumer-oriented Vista and that this, in turn, frees up cycles for more important tasks (like the applications you're running to actually get some work done).
Whatever the cause, I will continue to dig into the differences between the Vista and "Workstation" 2008 runtime environments. In particular, I'll be looking for evidence of OS layers that might be missing from the overall "Workstation" 2008 stack, layers that might be the source of the up to 17 percent performance hit that tests show Vista's particular flavor of the "NT 6.0.6001" kernel introduces.
I'd also like to hear what other users are finding as they experiment with Windows "Workstation" 2008. Let's get the dialog going and see if the initial hype stands up to some old fashioned scrutiny. Fire away!
Posted by Randall Kennedy on March 10, 2008 12:21 PM
March 05, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Windows "Workstation" 2008 Clobbers Vista in Benchmark Testing
Just when you think you've got it all figured out, along comes another curve ball to keep you guessing. This time around it's a set of new benchmark test results from our old friends at the exo.performance.network. Apparently, these guys heard about the brouhaha surrounding some Microsoft's engineer's blog post about using Server 2008 as a "Super Workstation OS" and decided to put the concept to the test. They loaded each OS onto identical hardware, tweaking the Server implementation to make it look and act like Vista. Then they tested them under a variety of productivity and multitasking scenarios.
The net result: Windows "Workstation" 2008 (i.e the tweaked Server 2008 installation) trashed Windows Vista with Service Pack 1, outscoring its desktop sibling by as much as 17%.
You can read all the gory details over at the exo.blog site. Suffice to say that there's a new option for power users who are fed-up with Vista's sluggishness: Windows Server 2008, or as I'm now calling it, "Windows NT 6.1 Workstation."
I made the switch myself this past weekend in support of my upcoming feature on the "Top 10 Reasons (Not) to Switch to Vista." And after just a few days running this beast I can honestly say that I will never go back to the sad piece of "bloatware" that is Windows Vista Ultimate. "NT 6.1 Workstation" is simply a superior OS. It's faster, feels more responsive and seems to do a much better job of managing the 4GB of memory I've thrown at it (Vista always seemed a bit page file-happy, even with the 4GB).
To be sure, there are things I miss about Vista. For starters, there's no Media Center. I had to scrounge around for a bunch of 3rd party CODECS just to play a DVD. Nor are any of the Vista Games available on Server 2008 (Solitaire, I'll miss you!). Useful Vista accessories, like Fax & Scan and the Windows Sidebar, are MIA, while some 3rd party tools are just plain broken (e.g. I had to downgrade my Skype install to version 3.2 since anything newer would crash consistently).
On the flip side, I can now run any and all Microsoft server applications locally, which makes debugging things like ADSI and SQL Server's Integration Services that much easier. In fact, as a pure development platform for Windows applications, Server 2008 is without equal. There's the performance (this OS really does rock). And, of course, you can tap Hyper-V to create a near-bare-metal VM environment. Visual Studio 2008 flies on this release. There really is no downside, especially if you have an MSDN account or are similarly licensed so you can use Windows Server 2008 on your own box for development purposes.
Given all the positives, I can't imaging why Microsoft didn't break-out the consumer aspects of Vista and offer a leaner, meaner "Workstation 2008" version for us hard core types. It would have gone a long way towards satiating our thirst for a "meatier" desktop Windows while rendering much of the "Save XP" messaging moot.
Maybe Microsoft just got lazy...oh well, at least now there's an alternative for those of us who are fed-up with Vista but who just can't live without Aero and the rest of the "6.x" Windows GUI.
Posted by Randall Kennedy on March 5, 2008 10:35 AM
March 03, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft owns up to Vista's flaws (sort of)
I love lawsuits. The smell of money has a way of dredging up all sorts of interesting and (previously) confidential information.
Take the case of the internal Microsoft email thread that surfaced recently in the wake of the pending "Vista Capable" class action suit. Here you have Steve Sinofsky, the newly appointed head of the Windows development team, confessing that Microsoft knew Vista wasn't ready to ship in late 2006. As he puts it:
"No one really believed we would ever ship so they didn't start the work until very late in 2006."
It sounds to me like he's admitting that even Microsoft's own developers had given up on ever getting Vista out the door. Of course, once they realized they were facing a real ship date (and not yet another moving target), the panic set in and they had to scramble to to meet the November RTM deadline. In other words, Vista RTM was the product of several weeks of Red Bull-infused "all nighters."
Sweet!
But the really juicy part comes later in the exchange. Here, Sinofsky points out that -- even after the OS went RTM -- a great many Windows XP drivers "didn't really work under Vista." He further explains that the fault lay with the "associated applets" -- i.e., the Control Panel icons, Task Bar widgets and shell extensions -- which would not "run within the constraints of the security model or the new video/audio driver models."
How nice!
So, basically, they knew Vista would break a whole lot of stuff (Sinofsky admits that even his own home printer wouldn't work with the RTM drop), yet they kept their mouths shut and shipped the OS anyway. Not exactly what you'd call "full disclosure," but then again forthrightness has never been one of Microsoft's shortcomings.
Of course, those of us who've been using Vista since the early betas knew all of this, at least empirically. After dozens of bad driver experiences you begin to suspect that Microsoft's vaunted backwards compatibility is not what it should be.
Now, with the Sinofsky comments coming to light, we can finally confirm what we all believed to be the case: That UAC was more than just an annoyance. It actually broke things. Important things. Like the UI mechanisms for myriad device drivers.
The folks at Microsoft keep asking us to trust them: That they know what they're doing; that the changes they're making are for the best; and that they'll preserve our investments in each generation of Microsoft technology. But when the "dirty laundry" gets aired, and I come across exchanges like this one, I can't help but feel a bit betrayed.
Note to Microsoft: If you're trying to implement an important and worthwhile new technology -- like UAC -- and you know you need to break some stuff to get it done, please just own up the the problem and let the IT community make up its own mind. Because, chances are good that -- if you deal with us honestly and present your case convincingly -- we'll accept the "no pain, no gain" logic and go along with you. But playing "hush-hush" with a major compatibility issue when your own people are struggling with the problem, well that's just bad form all the way around.
Posted by Randall Kennedy on March 3, 2008 06:11 AM
February 26, 2008 | Comments: (0)
You know you've arrived as a journalist when your contemporaries start using your material as inspiration. This week, it's Ed Bott -- ZDNet's "Microsoft Report" blogger -- who's taken a cue from the master. In his missive titled "Remembering Windows XP's early days," Mr. Bott attempts to rebut my recent post about "Comparing Windows versions" by digging up comments made by former InfoWorld staffer P.J. Connelly and attributing them to yours truly.
That the quotes in question came from Mr. Connelly (I merely contributed the test data for the article), and not me, is likely a moot point. Mr. Bott was looking for a cheap-shot opportunity to use against InfoWorld, and my name popped-up next to P.J. on the byline.
To be clear, I had my own reservations about Windows XP. However, my concerns had less to do with lowered performance than with my own selfish desire (shared by many of my colleagues) to see the the NT code base remain separate from the "mainstream" (i.e. consumer) Windows product line.
Remember, Windows 2000 Workstation (as it was called back then, to differentiate it from the server version) was never a mainstream desktop product. Rather, it was the next logical evolution of Windows NT Workstation, the high-end, "power user" OS that uber-geeks ran because Windows 9x was too unstable for "real" computing. The great unwashed still ran Windows 95/98/98SE/Me, and given Windows 2000 Workstation's miniscule installed base, most 3rd party hardware and software vendors were reluctant to put time, money or resources into developing for it.
Those of us who were die-hard NT fans (I've been using it, in one form or another, as my primary desktop OS since 1992) didn't care. We made do with what we had, and side-stepped the poor driver quality and half-hearted technical support by being choosy about our hardware. It was a wild and woolly time for the NT community, and despite some superficial similarities to Windows 9x -- most notably, the sketchy plug & play support and semi-functional explorer GUI -- Windows 2000 Workstation was very much an "NT" release.
Enter Windows XP.
When Microsoft first announced in late 2000 that they were developing yet another NT-based desktop OS -- this, only a year after shipping Windows 2000 Workstation -- I thought they were joking. Then, when I learned that they would be using this new release to "unify" the Windows 9x and Windows NT code bases, I started to get mad.
How could they? Surrendering my precious NT to those bastards from the "DOS/Windows" crowd! My OS was pure! It was Dave Cutler's baby! A VMS clone! A real OS! These other guys were heathens, responsible for the infamous "UAE", the Win16Lock semaphore and EMM386! In other words, a bunch of lazy hacks!
Ultimately, my fears proved unfounded. The newly integrated Windows development team managed to pull-off an engineering feat by marrying the best parts of Windows NT -- robustness, stability, security -- with the usability features that made Windows 9x so maddeningly difficult to abandon. And the industry -- hungry for an upgrade cycle -- embraced Microsoft's new stepchild with excitement and enthusiasm.
Fast forward to today and the scene is quite different. Windows XP, not Windows 9x, is the dominant OS. There is no desktop bifurcation -- everyone is running the NT code base, which is now fully supported by both hardware and software vendors.
And, most importantly, there are no glaring holes in Windows XP that threaten to undermine its position on the desktop (Windows 9x was a huge liability to Microsoft's enterprise strategy).
Bottom Line: None of the pressures that drove customers to Windows XP -- the rickety Windows 9x underpinnings, the desire to unify Microsoft's disparate Windows architectures and leverage NT technologies across a broader user base -- exist today.
It's a different world, one that's -- by and large -- satisfied with Windows the way it is. This is why I will continue to call out those who try to downplay "Save XP" by equating resistance to Vista with the earth-shattering transition that was Windows 9x-to-Windows XP. That move was truly apples-to-oranges, while Vista remains more of a grapefruit. And as we all know from experience, grapefruit suck.
Here's hoping that Windows 7 is something a bit more palatable. Like a mango. Or a kiwi. I hear that papaya is nice this time of year. Maybe I'll go out in the yard and cut a few ...
Posted by Randall Kennedy on February 26, 2008 09:56 AM
February 24, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Comparing Windows versions: apples to oranges to grapefruit
One of the arguments I hear in defense of Windows Vista's bloated footprint is that it's simply a repeat of the situation faced by users when Windows XP first shipped. Back then, the logic goes, users were complaining about Windows XP's CPU and memory requirements, with many resisting the upgrade push because they simply didn't want to make the necessary hardware commitment.
This argument would make perfect sense if Vista were merely another in a long line of similarly architected OS. However, the truth is that "Windows 6.0" is really only the second mainstream iteration of the current Windows platform (Windows 2000 doesn't count since it was never a mainstream product). As such, there simply is no real precedent from which to draw such conclusions. Windows XP users typically upgraded from Windows 98 or Me. And while there was significant pain associated with that migration, it had more to due with the move to a new kernel and driver architecture (i.e. from extended DOS to NT) than anything else.
As those of us who remember can attest, the jump from DOS/Windows to Windows XP was a quantum leap forward in Microsoft's OS architecture. For the first time, users could run multiple applications reliably, with real preemptive multitasking and memory protection. And while it took time for new drivers to appear, when they did they helped take previously flaky technologies, like Plug & Play, to new heights of usability.
The introduction of Windows XP was a watershed moment for the PC industry, one that firmly cemented Microsoft's role as the pace-setter for the desktop. Contrast this with Vista, which is basically Windows XP with more "stuff" heaped on top, and you begin to see why so many users are balking at the upgrade message. There's simply not enough "meat" to justify the pain involved.
With Windows XP, users of 98 and Me knew what they were getting: A real OS that would finally take advantage of their (at the time) powerful 32-bit machines. Vista boasts no such compelling shift in power or reliability. It's basically "XP Plus," not so much an apples-to-oranges comparison as it is oranges-to-grapefruit: fatter, less tasty and generally tough to swallow.
Posted by Randall Kennedy on February 24, 2008 03:24 AM
February 20, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Despite SP1, Vista is still slower than XP
So here I am, sitting in the main terminal at Dubai International, killing time during my six hour layover by sifting through the headlines surrounding the release Vista SP1. Over at a competitor's site, two prominent bloggers are really going at it, posting contradictory benchmark results that show Vista to be either a) on par with Windows XP or b) much slower than XP on the same hardware.
In each case, the bloggers are focusing on areas in which Microsoft claims to have improved Vista performance with SP1: file copies, network transfers, etc. However, neither author seems be paying attention to the myriad other areas -- productivity applications, services, multimedia tasks -- where Vista is an absolute dog compared to Windows XP.
Did they not read my previous postings on the subject? I made it pretty clear last year that Vista was struggling big time vs. XP on comparable hardware, and that SP1 would be no panacea.
It's like the Microsoft PR machine flipped a switch somewhere and instantly reframed the entire discussion of Vista performance around just those areas it improved on in SP1.
News flash, people: File copying is the least of the problems affecting Windows Vista. Test after test shows that the new OS is a performance slug across the board.
Even when you disable all of the bells and whistles (Aero, Search) and turn-off every conceivable background service (Superfetch, ReadyBoost, etc) -- in other words, strip it down to something comparable to XP in terms of underlying OS footprint -- Vista is still a good 40 percent slower than XP on a variety of basic productivity tasks.
The only solution to this generalized performance malaise is to throw hardware at it: Vista performs quite tolerably on state-of-the-art hardware. Unfortunately for Microsoft, so does XP SP3. In fact, it absolutely screams on today's high-end, multi-core desktops and laptops, which puts customers in the position of having to choose between functionality and raw performance.
In conclusion: Don't be confused by all of these headline-grabbing "performance tests." They're focusing almost exclusively on areas that Microsoft tweaked with SP1. The fact remains that Vista will always require roughly 2X the hardware performance to deliver an end-user experience on par with Windows XP.
And when you finally do give in and buy that new "Designed for Vista" PC, do yourself a favor and provision yourself a small XP partition, just as an experiment. Don't settle for Vista until you've seen how much performance you're trading for that shiny new UI and whatever other bells and whistles you find so irresistible. You may be surprise at just how fast your new PC really is - once it's no longer encumbered by the bloat and sluggishness of "Windows 6.x."
Posted by Randall Kennedy on February 20, 2008 10:23 AM
February 08, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft's Caligari acquisition triggers flashback
When I heard the news that Microsoft had acquired Caligari Software, makers of the trueSpace 3D modeling application, I thought for a moment that I had slipped through some rift in space/time. It was once again 1996, and I was fresh off a stint with IBM's Personal Software Marketing division. My new wife was pregnant with our first child and we were working together on a side project involving VRML and Biochemistry.
The project consisted of developing 3D VRML models of various building-block molecules. For those of you unfamiliar with the acronym, VRML stands for Virtual Reality Modeling Language, a kind of 3D file format for rendering objects or landscapes over the web. In practice, you'd use a browser plug-in to parse the file and render the "world" in an interactive (i.e. you could navigate within the 3D space) window inside a web page. VRML even had its own funky URL syntax that would trigger Internet Explorer or (at the time) Netscape Navigator to load the plug-in.
It was new. It was cool. And it was entirely impractical.
For starters, VRML files tended to be fat, much fatter than your typical HTML document. In fact, the files were *so* large that the plug-in makers all adopted a compression scheme involving gzip in and effort to lower the network overhead. However, even with compression (and other bandwidth-saving tweaks, like loading only portions of the VRML object based on view "distance" and the level of detail required), VRML still never caught on outside of a few "gee whiz" 3D demos. We ended-up shelving the project after we discovered another company had already released a competing library using a more powerful (it was designed specifically to render molecular models and had features that that VRML couldn't touch), proprietary -- yet freely downloadable -- plug-in.
I bring all this up because, at time of the aforementioned project, my tool of choice for VRML modeling was trueSpace2 (and its "freebie," VRML-only sibling called "Fountain" -- trueSpace2 didn't support VRML authoring directly). Many long nights were spent wrestling with Caligari's oddball UI decisions (they basically threw much of the Microsoft application design guide out the window and rolled their own). It was an interesting time in my life, and my involvement with VRML ultimately led me to write a book about the technology: "Instant VRML Worlds" (look it up).
Returning to the present for the moment, it's my understanding that Microsoft has acquired Caligari to help with its Virtual Earth project. I'm guessing they want to tap Caligari's expertise in LOD (Level of Detail) management and other VRML-like technologies that will be critical to the success of the their upcoming 3D version of Virtual Earth.
Congratulations to Caligari for getting picked-up by the Redmond behemoth. It's always nice to see an "old friend" make it big ...
Posted by Randall Kennedy on February 8, 2008 08:37 AM
February 04, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Ubuntu 8.04: hard(l)y worth a yawn
I had high hopes for the next Ubuntu. Version 7.10 was a solid release, and apart from a debilitating ACPI bug that rendered it impractical (to me) for day-to-day use, I found little to dislike about it. Unfortunately, Ubuntu 8.10 -- a.k.a "Hardy Heron" -- is shaping-up to be one of those releases that reminds of why I can't stand some of the more "desktop-centric" distributions.
Simply put, "Hardy" is nothing more than "me-tooism" run amok. I mean, how many Windows Vista features do you need to rip-off before someone calls you a "copycat?"
For example:
- Individual GUI "unlock" buttons for system-level tasks. Hello? Microsoft calls this "User Account Control." They even have a special icon image that can be overlaid onto buttons that trigger functions requiring privilege elevation. Oh, but since it's "UAC-on-Linux" I guess it'll suck less, right? Yeah, sure ...
- Hand-in-hand with the "unlock" buttons: PolicyKit, the most poorly disguised knock-off of Windows Group Policies I've ever encountered.
Note to Canonical: Microsoft has an eight year head-start in this department, with massive 3rd party buy-in, so ... good luck!
- World Clock/Weather Applet: One of the features I missed most from Vista during my stay in Ubuntu-land was the ability to have multiple clocks (I travel a lot overseas). Of course, there are numerous weather applets for Windows Sidebar, so this is clearly another "me-tooism."
- Finally, prefetch! It'd be interesting to see a technical breakdown of how this new "Superfetch" knock-off compares to the original. I guess Con Kolivas was right, after all!
- Multiple audio sliders. Again, done already with Vista, though it's hard to do a proper comparison since the "Hardy" version isn't enabled yet. Will the "copycatting" never end?
To be fair, Ubuntu 8.04 will likely be a fine OS, one that further strengthens