- An SP1 video spoof? Still funny though...
- Windows Vista: Another Windows ME? I hope so!
- Clarification Of My "Don't Blame Vista" Posting
- Don't blame Vista for "Vista (In)Capable" lawsuit
- Exchangepedia Blog Author calls "Save XP Campaign" Childish!
- Save XP? Why bother?
- Vista successor already in the works
- IE patch causes crashes
- Goodbye, Vista Kill Switch
- Just When You Got Used to Clicking for Activation...
April 24, 2008
An SP1 video spoof? Still funny though...
In scanning my favorite news/blog sites the other day, I came across this funny little video regarding Vista SP1 on Long Zheng's site.
You can watch the video on YouTube.
Is it real...? I don't know but someone went through an awful lot of effort to make a pretty decent replica of the Boss' Dancing in the Dark, right down to the inclusion of a Courtney Cox look-a-like dancing on stage with the 'Vista Street Band' (corny... I know).
Even more surprising to me was the use of the term "Ecosystem" in the video and in the title. And shortly thereafter the term kept popping up. "Microsoft Ecosystem." While not entirely a new term (you can find references of this usage going back quite a few years) it just seems to be saturating the propaganda these days... along with green-friendly assurances and little green leaves next to everything in technology available these days.
True, certain manufacturers are making a tremendous effort to preserve our world... whereas others have learned the amazing, cost-effective method of just sticking a little "green friendly" leaf and message all over their products.
Posted by J. Peter Bruzzese on April 24, 2008 10:17 PM
March 20, 2008
Windows Vista: Another Windows ME? I hope so!
Back in 1999, Microsoft sent yours truly a free copy of Windows ME. I installed it, played with it for a week -- then uninstalled it and went to Windows 2000 Beta, which I liked a whole lot more.
Why did I dislike ME? I can't quite put my finger on it. It felt real buggy. I had all sorts of little issues like mysterious crashes, error messages over device drivers and all sorts of conflicting programs and utilities. ME veterans know what I am talking about right?. If I didn't have another alternative, I would have gone back to Windows 98 -- but being that I could switch over to 2000, I did.
In the years to follow, I held on to that CD. I couldn't even give it away. Windows ME became the joke of the OS world. I know I made a few jokes of my own about it. But now, a good friend of mine, Long Zheng, famous creator of the istartedsomething site, has written a post titled "Why Windows Me deserves more respect." The article commends ME for the then-overlooked technical innovations it brought to Windows desktop, and draws a parallel between ME and another arguably under appreciated OS: Vista.
Some quotable comments by Zheng include the following: "What a lot of people forget, or don’t even recognize to begin, with is that Windows Me is actually a rather innovative and forward-looking operating system. Instead, almost everyone focuses on its reliability problems which can be largely attributed to the flaky and inherently unstable Win9x kernel."
He then goes on to list all the great features that came out in ME that we have today, including System Restore, Automatic Updates, Universal Plug and Play (UPnP), Windows Image Acquisition, and Movie Maker.
Zheng goes on to say "What’s more, Windows 98 Second Edition was released on May 5, 1999 and Windows XP on October 25, 2001. Between the two, Windows Me was released on September 14, 2000, giving it the shortest Windows lifespan of only 406 days. Taking into account consumer purchasing life-cycles and other factors, what’s left is only a couple of days of fame. Any product preceded and superseded that quickly would have suffered the same fate."
So, what does this mean in terms of Vista? Well, some are already writing of the passing of Vista as if it's dead in the water. Articles such as "Vista, we hardly knew you" imply its passing, with secondary titles including the acronym DOA.
I agree with Zheng: It may be a few more Windows releases before we fully appreciate Vista and all it is brought to the table today. On the user side, these features include Windows DVD Maker, the Windows Sidebar and Parental Controls perhaps. On the deeper angle that might include ReadyBoost and ReadyDrive technologies, SuperFetch, BitLocker drive protection, IPv6 support, User Account Control, Integrity Control, Firewall enhancements for both incoming and outgoing traffic… and much, much more. We will look back and say "Oh, that first came out in Vista? I didn't realize that! Who knew?"
On that day, many will hopefully appreciate Vista a bit more. Those that say “it isn’t much of a change” probably never made it past the Start orb. For some of us -- those of us who really know what is going on in the inside of Vista, with all of its features, bells and whistles -- that appreciation is already there.
The one difference with Vista, contrary to popular belief, is that it is not going to be retired in 406 days worth of lifespan. No… not at all. Windows 7 isn’t due out until sometime in 2010. We can learn to appreciate Vista, while working WITH Vista. It will be a couple of more years before we can say “Hasta La Vista” to Vista.
Posted by J. Peter Bruzzese on March 20, 2008 03:00 AM
March 12, 2008
Clarification Of My "Don't Blame Vista" Posting
Apparently my post yesterday got a few people upset, which I am usually prepared for and welcome. I stand with Microsoft and that is bound to create hate mail from the masses.
However, I believe my comments were mistook and I want to set the record straight. On the legal side of things, a court will judge if Microsoft is guilty or not. On a personal note, my mother-in-law purchased one of those Vista Capable systems and I have been trying to get that thing to speed up for the past year. So, even having written the book "Tricks of the Vista Masters"... this particular Vista Master couldn't get the thing moving any better. I shut down everything I could think of... but the system just isn't up to par. Well, we are going to pursue this further and see about getting some money back on the laptop so that she can get another one... a better one!
Here is where I think you might understand better what I was explaining in my post yesterday. Many have clobbered Vista (and some have the technical data and experience with it to do so). Many have just done that to rage against the Microsoft machine. Some people have never even touched Vista and yet they will claim it stinks!
I love it. The developers did an excellent job on it. I've had no trouble with it outside of the ordinary with any system. And when we get my mother-in-law a new machine... it will have Vista on it!!!
My point was not to confuse a legal issue with a technical one. The two are not one and the same, although your anger may make it seem as if it is. If Microsoft is found guilty... blame Microsoft. But Vista in and of itself, is not what is on trial here.
Posted by J. Peter Bruzzese on March 12, 2008 09:10 PM
March 12, 2008
Don't blame Vista for "Vista (In)Capable" lawsuit
Microsoft has yet another lawsuit on its hands. This time, it's over the permission the company gave PC makers to place a "Windows Vista Capable" label on their machines in 2006, before the OS was released-- even though many of those PCs were not powerful enough to truly handle Vista and all of its features. (That includes the Aero interface, which I personally turn off anyway, but I still like knowing I can use it if I want.)
Microsoft's responsibility in all this still remains a judicial decision. The company is trying to get the lawsuit thrown out, claiming its documentation made clear that that "Windows Vista Capable" PCs wouldn't run all the Vista features with Home Basic. If, however, the company is found at fault, let's not blame Vista itself or those who developed it (and did an excellent job I might add).
Rather, fault should lie with those behind the "Windows Vista Capable" marketing scheme. Microsoft is a large company. Executive decisions are made in terms of marketing that often have nothing to do with products themselves. In fact, do you think the developers were asked, "Hey guys, what should we name it?" and they came up with "Windows Vista!"? Not likely.
Whoever came up with the Vista Capable guidelines over at Microsoft needs a talking to. The guidelines were way too low and people bought systems that they describe as "running with all the speed of a tortoise." The entire Vista Capable scheme wasn't supported by retailers either: Many have come forward in anger (including stores like Wal-Mart and Office Depot).
In fact, as reported by the Seattle Post-Intelligence, many Microsoft execs didn't support the Vista Capable plan, a fact brought to light in e-mails by the plaintiffs' lawyers.
Now there is a positive side to all of this for those Vista users who purchased one of the insufficiently powerful "Windows Vista Capable" systems and subsequently hate the OS: Your loathing likely has more to do with the hardware and the version of Vista you're working with than with Vista itself. In fact, many critics are saying that the lowest-end version of Vista, Home Basic, isn't even Vista at all because it cannot run all of the touted Vista features.
Personally, I use only one flavor of Windows Vista: the Ultimate Version. This includes BitLocker technology and a few other extras that I require. From an enterprise Windows perspective, I recommend Ultimate, especially for traveling business persons, to ensure the data on their laptops is secure from theft. My personal experience with Vista Ultimate, running on systems that have 2GB of RAM and a decent processor and video card has been flawless.
I love Vista, and this lawsuit will not hinder my view in any way of the OS or of the Vista development team. It is, however, an embarrassment for Microsoft, and it may end up being a costly one if the lawsuit proceeds. Stay tuned for more on this saga.
Posted by J. Peter Bruzzese on March 12, 2008 03:00 AM
February 28, 2008
Exchangepedia Blog Author calls "Save XP Campaign" Childish!
The anger has been boiling over between the two camps. Is it Apple vs. Microsoft again? Nope. Microsoft vs. Microsoft (with some Mac/Linux lovers tossed in for good measure). The subject is XP vs. Vista and it has been a long and ugly debate between the camps. ("Why can't we all just get along?")
InfoWorld has been polling the tech audience and has received nearly 100,000 online signatures (you can read more here). That may sound like a lot... and in all honesty it is impressive to get that many people to agree to one cause. However, in the overall scheme of things will it budge the folks at Redmond to reconsider its plans? Not if Bharat Suneja, an MVP for Exchange and tech guru who publishes the popular Exchangepedia Blog site has anything to say about it. He has done his own research on the matter and his opinion should be heard! Read his full post here.
For example, he writes:
"Though Microsoft will stop selling Windows XP based on the above timeline, support for the operating system isn't going to end when that happens. Microsoft Support Lifecycle explains Microsoft's support policies, including what mainstream and extended support mean. According to the Microsoft Support Lifecycle for Windows XP:
- Mainstream support will end on April 14th, 2009.
- Extended support will be available for five years from that date, till April 8th, 2014!
For a product with General Availability dating back to December 31, 2001, Windows XP doesn't seem like a product that's being retired prematurely."
The point Bharat is trying to make: Windows XP is an operating system that has lived past its prime, and Microsoft isn't about to pull the plug on it any time soon. (Users can move to Vista on their own timeline).
My favorite part of his post is where he quotes from an earlier post that I had written, weighing in on the subject (for which I was severly lambasted by readers... using insults and profanity like only a trucker can...). You can read my earlier post here.
Well... what can I say? Some say Vista isn't ready for the enterprise, although my last post describes how Vista was put into use at Continental Airlines immediately - and planes didn't fall out of the sky. So, obviously it is satisfying some, albeit not all. As for the "Save XP" campaign... it seems like a moot point. Come 2009, if you're not ready to move to Windows Vista, its successor will probably show up long before the extended support for Windows XP ends in 2014.
Posted by J. Peter Bruzzese on February 28, 2008 05:43 PM
January 30, 2008
I'd love to defend Microsoft Vista against Mac, Linux, or some obscure OS -- but instead, I find myself defending it against Windows XP. That's because all I hear is warring from within the Microsoft community about how unfair it is that they will one day have to stop using XP -- a sentiment perpetuated by InfoWorld's Save Windows XP campaign.
First off, no one is forcing you to do anything. The only step Microsoft is taking so far is to stop selling XP six months from now. If you want to keep using a seven-year-old OS with security holes a-plenty, go ahead. Who's stopping you? Hey, install Windows 95 too, while you're at it. But you can't expect Microsoft to indefinitely support XP when it's poured so many resources into developing its best OS to date in Vista.
The fact of the matter is, Vista is incredible. I've been working with it since Beta 3, and I won't return to that cartoon-looking XP for anything. Not only is it more secure than XP, it includes a host of invaluable new tools and applications (more on those in a bit).
Yes, Vista is more resource-intensive than XP. Yes, upgrading from XP to Vista requires putting some cash on the table. But Vista beats XP hands down, and the Save XP campaign amounts to unfairly criticizing Microsoft for adhering to a core capitalist practice: retiring an old product to sell newer, better ones.
For years, one of the biggest complaints about XP (and Windows in general) was its lackluster security. So in Vista, Microsoft created a slew of powerful security features, including User Account Control (UAC), Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR), Windows Service Hardening, Windows Integrity Control, Windows Resource Protection, and other behind-the-scenes solutions. (If you've never heard of these, read chapter four of my book "Tricks of the Microsoft Windows Masters".) Microsoft has also included Parental Controls that reside at the OS level to provide added protection for families, and Bitlocker technology to completely encrypt the data on a laptop for traveling businesspersons.
These much-anticipated security enhancements should be reason enough for Windows shops to upgrade to Vista, yet they represent just a portion of the OS's advantages over XP. There's also enhanced collaboration possibilities, improved built-in diagnostics and self-healing, and simplified networking.
Getting more granular, Vista delivers enhanced search capabilities that can save a user a tremendous amount of time. Power management with Group Policy settings allows for reduced carbon emissions and savings. Admins have greater control through Multiple Local Group Policy Objects (MLGPOs). There's also increased support for Tablet PCs, which could lower TCO by 14 percent for mobile PCs each year. Most important, of course, there's a cool new interface for solitaire! Yet despite all the advantages Vista holds over XP, customers have continued to resist, throwing up other arguments for not upgrading.
One such argument: Critics complain that some of their applications won't work properly with Vista or that drivers aren't available. Why is that Microsoft's fault? Look, XP was released in 2001, Vista in January 2007. Why aren't customers complaining to their software vendors for not doing their job of developing apps that work with Vista? We knew it was coming for years. Microsoft released the necessary info for it to happen. Some vendors jumped right on it; others were too lazy to support the people and the move to Vista. Maybe they just thought, "Oh, well, we'll wait until SP1."
Here, an enterprise customer merely has to say, "We're going to Vista -- and any software vendor that doesn't support Vista will be dropped from our company." Watch and see how fast everything will start to work with Vista.
As for complaints that Vista is too resource intensive, I've had no problems with that -- then again, I went out and bought new computers. So you know what? Go buy new computers. I'm sorry if you want to keep those dusty, five-year-old systems going a bit longer, but this industry needs cash to keep it moving forward. We get new cars every few years because we want the latest and greatest features, such as GPS, a camera in the back for safety, swivel seats, and DVD players. Do you complain that they cost more? Do you argue with the dealership for not also allowing you to buy a "new" model from 2000? But Microsoft shouldn't develop a new OS -- and charge for it? And the new OS shouldn't require anything more than what your system needed six years ago? Give me a break.
If you read a lot of the comments that people have been adding on the Save XP pages, you might note that an awful lot of people say, "Go to Linux," or "That's why I use Linux." You know, I've never heard a Mac user complain about Apple or their Mac, nor a Linux user complain about Red Hat or whatever version they are using. That's not to say they don't have problems; they just keep the discussion among themselves. But they are having a field day watching Microsoft users fight each other. Ever think they're the ones stirring up this whole Save XP campaign?
You are welcome to express your opinion by commenting to this blog post, or within InfoWorld's Save Windows XP campaign.
Posted by J. Peter Bruzzese on January 30, 2008 03:00 AM
January 23, 2008
Vista successor already in the works
Well, we had to assume something would come after Vista -- or did we think Microsoft just folded its hands, looked at all it had created, and said, "It is good" in the Biblical way?
Windows 7, ladies and gentleman. What cool name will the minds at Redmond give it this time? And will they continue with the Spanish version, e.g. Windows Caliente? Or perhaps try some other languages for future projects, like Windows Akunamatata or Windows FeiChangHao? Who knows? But we have several years to find out: It's slated for 2009 (but we all know how that works, so let's plan for 2010).
But the first known build of Windows 7 was identified as a Milestone 1 (M1) code drop and was sent to key Microsoft partners this month in both x86 and x64 versions.
One of the next-gen OS's coolest features that's being discussed: the minimalistic version of the kernel, called MinWin (not to be confused with Windows 2008 Server Core). Back in October, our good friend Long Zheng (who no doubt appreciated my slight use of Chinese pinyin above) posted a demonstration of MinWin here that you might want to watch.
Now, I am no fortune teller, but I foresee this next release causing controversy as people complain about it and cry about leaving Vista behind. (By then, of course, everyone will love Vista, and talk badly about their XP systems with words such as cartoon-ish.)
Windows Grande Problemo. Catchy name.
Posted by J. Peter Bruzzese on January 23, 2008 08:31 AM
December 19, 2007
There are reports that last week's security patch for Internet Explorer may have caused some unforeseen problems for many IE users, both on Windows XP and on Vista. Some users report not being able to connect to Web sites at all on occasion, and random browser crashes.
The IE security update attempted to fix bugs in IE6 and IE 7. However, users started posting reports of IE 6, IE 7, and the Messenger mail client not working to the Microsoft Developer Network IE blog and the Microsoft Windows Update newsgroup immediately following installation of the patch.
The patch apparently introduced a bug that causes a particular problem for sites that use a secure HTTP connection to pass credentials before loading a nonsecure page — common with some Web single-sign-on systems and consumer single-sign-ons like Microsoft Passport. That could prove to be a problem for enterprise users who access portal-based applications — especially if they're set as the default opening homepage for users.
So if you're still planning to roll out last Tuesday's patches, be sure to run a full test of IE on internal Web applications. Uninstalling appears to fix the problem, as does a Windows registry hack — so if you've got users who auto-updated, you at least have some workaround options.
As an added help desk fun bonus, my system's security settings seemed to be reset after the update, and the pop-up blocker started blocking menu pop-ups from within one of my most-used internal Web-based applications. So you may get a rash of help desk calls from users confused about why their applications aren't working if they haven't paid attention to that bar that appears at the top of the browser window when IE blocks content.
Posted by Sean Gallagher on December 19, 2007 03:00 AM
December 04, 2007
So, apparently there's at least one major improvement in Windows Vista SP1 most people can get behind. Microsoft is eliminating the anti-piracy feature which disables Vista's functionality if it fails the Windows Genuine Advantage test, replacing it with a kinder, gentler, "get Genuine" message.
Microsoft VP Michael Sievert said the in the new approach in SP1, "Users whose systems are identified as counterfeit will be presented with clear and recurring notices about the status of their system and how to get genuine. They won’t lose access to functionality or features, but it will be very clear to them that their copy of Window Vista is not genuine and they need to take action."
Posted by Sean Gallagher on December 4, 2007 12:25 PM
November 16, 2007
Just When You Got Used to Clicking for Activation...
The next Internet Explorer release will get rid of the warning box for ActiveX components launched in the browser, the result of Microsoft paying Eolas to license its intellectual property. The change doesn't require any modifications to Web applications.
Considering the gloom and doom that surrounded the Eolas ruling two years ago, the change didn't really throw enterprise Web applications for a loop. So, taking away the extra click might be more of a security issue for desktop managers than a boon to on-demand applications.
Posted by Sean Gallagher on November 16, 2007 04:33 PM
November 14, 2007
IBM's hosted Symphony: Will anyone listen?
IBM appears to be getting ready to offer its Lotus Symphony suite as a hosted application, competing directly with Google Apps and Microsoft's Office Live. Does IBM's entry into the on-demand desktop application space signal trouble for Office?
Microsoft's Office Live strategy is still primarily focused on small business, for groups of 10 or fewer users. It's not an enterprise-changing play. Microsoft's enterprise applications on demand are more in the form of services, not desktop tools -- Exchange and SharePoint, for example.
IBM started giving away Symphony for free in September, following a similar path to Sun's with StarOffice (though OpenOffice.org is admittedly not the same thing as Sun's commercial release). The chances, however, of a free Symphony desktop suite displacing Office in the corporate world are close to nil. And while a hosted version might be interesting to organizations still using Lotus Notes, it's doubtful that it would upset anyone's applecart, aside from Google's efforts. Here's why:
That's not to say there isn't anything interesting about hosted desktop applications. Hundreds of organizations are already using hosted applications -- through desktop virtualization via Citrix and Terminal Server.
But does IBM's enterprise credibility mean trouble for Microsoft on the desktop? Not really. Redmond should pay close attention, though, to the parts of hosted applications that users actually use.
Posted by Sean Gallagher on November 14, 2007 03:00 AM
October 28, 2007
Vista and Windows Server's Best Salesman--New Hardware
First the good news--Vista is apparently a hit, with over 88 million copies shipped thus far. Despite the fact that Vista still has to be widely accepted in the enterprise, and news that standalone sales have been well behind those of Windows XP's during the same point in its lifecycle--59.7%, according to NPD Group, during the first six months of sales. That's not really a surprise, given that 80 percent of Microsoft's Windows revenue comes from pre-installed copies on new computers. And given that most systems come with Vista by default now, Vista's real competition is channel-installed Windows XP.
Windows pre-installs rule on the server as well, apparently. Windows' growth rate is was reportedly higher than that of Linux in 2006, according to IDC, possibly even taking away market share from Linux on new server shipments.
It does seem the steam has dropped out of the Linux market a little after the initial Unix-to-Linux migration gold rush, at least from the standpoint of the pre-installed side of the business.
But how many copies were erased off the computers they came shipped on and replaced with Windows XP or Linux by IT support teams at business customers? No telling. And since most Linux distros don't come with a per-seat licensing scheme--and, in fact much of Linux's success in overseas markets is on older hardware--trying to line up Linux and Windows market statistics is an apples-to-wombats comparison.
Posted by Sean Gallagher on October 28, 2007 07:10 PM
October 21, 2007
The Incredible Shrinking Windows
Many of us complain about just how much of a hard slog it is to do anything in the Aero interface of Vista. And apparently, at least one Microsoft engineer admitted during a presentation at the University of Illinois. "A lot of people think of Windows as this large, bloated operating system, and that's maybe a fair characterization, I have to admit," said Microsoft distinguished engineer Eric Traut. And as Jeremy Kirk reported, Traut is trying to do something about it with MinWin, a shrunk-down version of the Windows kernel that requires less than 40 MB of RAM to run, and fits in 25 MB of storage. That, of course, is without a graphical UI.
Traut's efforts are going to be part of the next version of Windows, called Windows 7, due out by 2010. Traut demonstrated MinWin for his audience; the demo is part of a video of the presentation. What's really encouraging about Traut's project and Windows 7 as a whole is that Microsoft is apparently striving for it to be fully modular--meaning you can install just the features of the OS you want without having to write a full install to disk.
That could lead to a whole new approach to deploying Windows in the enterprise--and some interesting side-effects as well. If Microsoft, say, publishes the module specs, someone could theoretically develop an alternative GUI for Windows 7, or replace some other element of the operating system.
In other words, as Microsoft is busy rattling its intellectual property swords over Linux, Windows could offer some of the same mix and match functionality as Linux distros.
Posted by Sean Gallagher on October 21, 2007 01:36 AM
October 09, 2007
There has been a lot said about how much more secure Microsoft Windows Vista has better security features than its predecessors. Security researchers who were invited to Redmond for this year's Blue Hat security event talked up how much better Vista was; one researcher even called it "arguably the most secure closed-source OS available on the market". A back-handed compliment, to be sure, but still a compliment.
But with all this security, and all of the much-ballyhoo'd improved software quality in Vista, why is it that there were six new patches today that affected Vista?
To be fair, only one of these -- a Windows RPC vulnerability in the networking authentication service-- is an actual operating system bug. It effects every version of Windows back to Windows 2000 SP4. And that's the source of the problem--the RPC is there for backward compatibility with the NTLM networking security provider. For those of you who don't remember, NTLM stands for Windows NT LAN Manager, the successor to Microsoft LAN Manager, which originally shipped on Microsoft OS/2. The NTLM authentication service hasn't significantly changed in over 10 years because of the need for backward compatibility.
Some other patches were tangentially OS-related. Three were for software that ships with the operating system: The Kodak Image Viewer, Windows Mail (and Outlook Express on older versions of the OS), and Internet Explorer. All three of these were critical fixes that addressed potential remote code execution--the Internet Explorer patch fixed four such holes.
In the case of Windows Mail, it was a Network News Transfer Protocol exploit--probably the oldest Internet application protocol supported by default in Windows. The IE vulnerabilities were in relatively well-known areas as well--file downloads and URL navigation. And the vulnerabilities were applicable to all of Microsoft's currently supported operating systems,
So, despite the fact that Vista stops me every time I click an administrative tool, dramatically darkens my screen and asks me if I really meant to do that, vulnerabilities that have existed in at least the last two versions of Windows--if not the last three or four--managed to find their way into Vista despite the Security Development Lifecycle and thousands upon thousands of hours of software testing. The rate of patches has slowed some--60 so far this year, versus 65 by this time last year--but not significantly, and the majority have affected Vista as much as earlier operating systems.
This is not to say that Vista hasn't fixed a lot of potential security problems. But it seems that for the number it didn't fix, it might at least not annoy the hell out of me so much when I launch something useful from its own user interface. And it's disingenuous to suggest that Vista's code is any more clean than that of other previous operating systems that have suffered the test of time and assault just because it followed some sort of new software methodology. The fact is, because Vista is new, yet carries so much of old Windows OS baggage with it, Vista will be getting patched with as much frequency as XP was for some time.
Posted by Sean Gallagher on October 9, 2007 09:02 PM
September 26, 2007
A few years ago, if you had said that Microsoft would someday release a product that was so hotly anticipated that over 1.7 million people would pay for it in advance without so much as a beta, somebody might have wanted to check your medication. But Microsoft did that with Halo 3 this week, perhaps the biggest entertainment software release ever.
So, what does this have to do with the enterprise? Well, the XBox and Halo are examples of what Microsoft's strengths and weaknesses are, and reveal a lot about what Microsoft is capable of: creating an application that allows real-time collaboration in a virtual world by teams of dozens of people who've never met, over a heterogeneous network--and all without so much as a "ipconfig /renew".
So, why is it that the over on the business side, the Vista experience still seems so...well, lacking? My experience thus far with networking Vista hasn't been a major improvement over XP, and the overhead required for the graphics -- clearly XBox-inspired, as well as Mac inspired--has made performance on 2 gigabytes of RAM reminiscent of Windows 3.0 on 640 kilobytes. While Microsoft is promoting the ROI of Vista from a support standpoint, why do I feel like the usability of my business desktop just went down, rather than up?
The XBox 360 has demonstrated that Microsoft can do software like this right--if it can control the hardware platform. The reason why wireless networking and connecting to the internet and the rest of the XBox Live experience are so seamless is because Microsoft controls the whole platform -- though it is still at the mercy of the Internet.
It's interesting that perhaps the general-purpose computer that the XBox 360 platform most closely resembles is Apple's. Some of the development for the XBox 360 was even done on Mac OS X, since the processors that power the XBox are based on the PowerPC architecture once favored by Apple.
Of course, Microsoft can't have that level of control for Windows -- it can't lock people down to a specific hardware choice, or limit them to approved software. Vista is probably as close to the XBox platform as Microsoft can get -- its security features and control over software and drivers, along with the system requirements to even get it running, gives Microsoft at least virtual control over the Vista experience, and locks parts of it out if the hardware and software aren't up to snuff instead of giving you the Blue Screen of Death experience.
Halo is an example of Microsoft making good acquisitions, and doing the right thing with them. Bungie, which used to make game software that ran on the Mac, for crying out loud, has thrived under Microsoft's rule, and has rewarded Redmond for its good judgement. The deal stands in sharp contrast with, say, Groove Networks, which gave Microsoft Ray Ozzie, but seemingly nothing else survived intact.
On the flipside, the XBox 360 also has demonstrated that Microsoft has trouble with the hardware side of things. With over a third of XBox 360 systems failing, it's clear that hardware reliability isn't in Microsoft's core competency set--though there have been PC manufacturers who've had a DOA rate similar to that with simpler requirements.
So, maybe we're lucky that Microsoft can't provide the same end-to-end experience with Windows in the enterprise that it can with XBox in the living room.
Posted by Sean Gallagher on September 26, 2007 07:36 AM
TOP STORIES
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
- Virtualization: A Step by Step Approach to Success
- Dialing up Agility with Business Transformation
- 5 Things You Need to Know About Storage Virtualization
- Need to Secure Your Virtualized Environments?
- When you need backup will it be there?
- Is your storage capacity holding you back?
