A longtime fixture at the event even after stepping down as CEO in 2006, McNealy instead is in Washington, DC on business for Sun Federal, a Sun subsidiary that works with federal government accounts. McNealy is president of Sun Federal.

McNealy had been known for presentations that injected humor into the event, such as offering in 2006 a Top 10 list of advantages to no longer being CEO.

But who cares if the HTC Touch is first to run on 3G networks? Apple has proven that being first is not critical to success. The iPod came years after other MP3 players. The iPhone came years after other so-called smartphones.

Now, I haven't used an HTC Touch, so it could be a worthwhile iPhone competitor. In our last smartphone comparison, InfoWorld chief technologist Tom Yager had good things to say about several predecessor HTC devices.

I have played with another iPhone competitor, Verizon Wireless's XV6800, which is a remarkably bad device. It is this ilk that best demonstrates how competitors to Apple routinely miss the point.

What Apple does well -- most of the time -- is create a compelling user experience that delights customers. The iPod did that for MP3 players and the iPhone has done that for mobile Internet devices. (The AppleTV did not.) So much so that people pay more for these devices than for competitors -- so many people in fact that Apple all but owns the MP3 player market and is coming on very strong very fast in the smartphone market.

Then look most of the iPhone competitors. Grafting a touchscreen to a unusable UI doesn't make a device an iPhone killer. People don't buy iPhones because they have touchscreens; they buy iPhones because they are useful, cool devices. The touchscreen is just part of what makes the iPhone cool and useful.

That Verizon travesty is a great example of such Frankenthinking. The touchscreen works on the outside (though the GUI is unusably bad), but when you open it up to expose the physical keyboard, the inside screen -- the one you would use with the keyboard -- isn't a touchscreen as you would expect. So, you can touch but not type, or type but not touch.

And did I mention the GUI is so bad that any other features that might be on the phone don't matter -- it's too painful to try to find them, much less use them. Who could possibly have thought this product should have been put on the market?

When competitors gets the real point that Apple has repeatedly made -- people prefer stuff that works well and delights them -- and start designing and engineering accordingly, the iPhone will stop being the archteype of the smartphone done right and instead become just another smartphone.

HTC and Nokia seem to have the best shot of getting this point. We'll see when the HTC Touch is actually available and what Nokia does in its forthcoming N96. History tells me they might come close, but that Apple will change the rules again and restart the competition at a new level. We'll see.

Gartner has been among the most consistent doubters of Vista, warning businesses in November 2005 that the Vista migration would be long and slow, with most IT shops not able to fully deploy it until 2009 -- advice it still holds to. And today its view on Vista has soured considerably.

[ Tell Microsoft to keep XP indefinitely: Sign our petition, and add your voice to our video pleas. ]

On the other side, Forrester Research started out cautious, estimating in 2006 that Vista upgrade momentum would be small compared to that for XP -- a view it reiterated in 2007. But more recently, Forrester's analysis has taken a "glass half full" tack, one that acknowledges the lack of enthusiasm for Vista while arguing that IT has no choice but to adopt Vista, so it might as well start.

Doing nothing is the safest, least risky course

Actually, IT does have a choice. Fittingly, it's the easiest -- and cheapest -- one to make: Stick with XP.

Think about it: Vista requires a significant hardware upgrade. Throw in software updates, testing, and training for both IT and end-users, and you are looking at several thousand dollars per employee. And for what?

Doing nothing avoids hard-dollar expenses, as well as the hidden costs of business interruption. And XP works. About three-quarters of businesses run XP today, and they can simply keep doing so. They can use the same software they have now, and the same hardware as well. And if it is time to refresh their hardware, they can do so, gaining much better performance by keeping XP on it.

An uncertain future shouldn't justify an unwanted investment

Forrester argues that because Vista's successor, Windows 7, is a complete mystery in terms of schedule and functionality, businesses can't afford to wait before making a decision on Vista. That's one way to look at the glass. Another way would be to view the fog around Windows 7 as an invitation to do nothing on Vista.

Why should you believe the transition from Vista to Windows 7 will be any more, or less, painful than the transition from XP to Vista, or from XP to Windows 7? Unless you specifically want Vista, why would you pay thousands of dollars per user to get it as a holding action until Windows 7 is clear?

Forrester's other main point for its Vista-as-holdover analysis is that Microsoft will end XP support in spring 2009. So what? How much support do you actually need for XP at its current level of maturity? Very little, if any. The minor tweaks in XP SP3 attest to that.

Moreover, Microsoft will continue offering security upgrades through spring 2014 -- plenty of time for the fog to clear around Windows 7, assuming it is even relevant six years down the road. After all, it's likely you'll rely much more on cloud computing and desktop virtualization in that time frame, calling into question whether the new Windows will even matter that much.

Defeatism is not the right strategy

Forrester's approach is defeatist. And following its analysis means ceding control of IT to Microsoft's desire to sell you something new, rather than make it earn those dollars by giving you something you actually want.

Instead, IT can use the savings from sticking with XP to invest in technologies that will have a lasting, positive impact on your organization: Take advantage of Windows Server 2008, experiment with cloud computing and desktop virtualization, enhance your data protection strategy, or pump money into customer-facing apps that increase your earnings.

XP is fine. It's reliable. It's a good performer. It's familiar. It's trustworthy. Why trade it in for an Edsel or a murky promise?

And this application has played a significant role in making the Macintosh more widely acceptable in both personal and business environments, as it got rid of the "what if my app won't run on the Mac?" dilemma that overshadowed Apple for years.

For the masses (including senior execs who sign IT project checks), Parallels defines virtualization. And that's a good thing, as it works quite well. I believe that the Parallels example will be a key factor beyond the Mac universe: It will show a successful use of virtualization on the desktop, where its benefits are far from widely realized.

That can only help make the case for desktop virtualization as Microsoft, Citrix, and others continue to push that nascent technology further.

The company clearly knows that Vista was hardly its best moment, an ungainly OS forced out the door after years of delay so Microsoft would have something new to sell. A triumph of short-term thinking that is turning out to be a Pyrrhic victory. But Dell may offer the face-saving out for Microsoft that also saves XP.

Decidedly mixed signals, so why the line in the sand for XP?

While both chairman Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer tout Vista as great, both have also given signals they don't really believe that.

In January, Gates soberly noted that there were lessons to be learned from Vista's development and slow uptake.

A week ago, Ballmer described Vista as a "work in progress" -- not exactly a compliment from something that was in development for five years and has been on the market for more than a year.

And the industry has been rife for months with reports that pretty much all the key decision-makers on Vista are no longer at Microsoft, suggesting a quiet purge.

Today, Ballmer hinted that Microsoft may extend XP's end-of-sales date -- at least that's how the Associated Press and the U.K.'s Register newspaper interpreted his remarks. Microsoft quickly reconfirmed the June 30 end-of-sales date, saying that Microsoft's belief is that customers like and want Vista. That doesn't mesh what InfoWorld has heard from readers, of which more than 170,000 have signed a petition asking Microsoft not to stop selling XP.

"I'd love to know exactly what, and how many 'customers' Microsoft claims to be getting this feedback from," David Bookbinder, owner of a Boston-area PC support company, told the IDG News Service. "My guess, and it's an educated one, is that it's more likely stockholder feedback." In other words, Microsoft should ignore its customers' desires and instead sell them a more profitable product and ensure they have no alternative to it.

Let's hope that's not what's going on. I'd rather believe that Microsoft has drunk its own Kool-Aid and is honest in believing Vista is great, rather than is sacrificing its reputation and brand loyalty for a short-term pickup. (The Christian Science Monitor has a compelling take on what Microsoft may be thinking.) And if that's the strategy, it's Apple that has been getting the pickup, ironically enough. Probably not Microsoft's intent.

Maybe it's Dell that will resolve this mess

InfoWorld's Ephraim Schwartz, following up on a reader tip, confirmed today that Dell will continue to sell XP-based PCs after the June 30 cutoff, using an option in some of Microsoft's Vista licenses.

If Dell sticks to these guns -- and if Hewlett-Packard joins in -- then XP can be saved. And Microsoft need not claim defeat. Microsoft's "downgrade" option for Vista Business and Vista Ultimate let users and PC makers install XP over Vista using the same license. (If you use any other version of Vista, you can't "downgrade," so avoid the other Vista versions after June 30.)

That option is not new, but until Dell's new program, the PC makers weren't using it.

Dell clearly has gotten the message that there is a longer term market for XP. Dell oscillates between No. 1 and No. 2 in terms of overall PC sales, so its decision to keep XP available beyond Microsoft's cutoff date should tell Microsoft something. Dell is clearly listening to its customers, even if Microsoft is unable to.

The beauty of Dell's approach is that it uses Microsoft's own "downgrade" option, so Microsoft doesn't have to change any of its stated policies. It even lets Microsoft claim a Vista sale -- you can only get XP after June 30 if you buy one of those Vistas. And, if Microsoft is concerned about the bottom line, it encourages the sales of the pricier Vista versions -- maybe what Microsoft intended all along.

I cringed when writing that last comment. It's almost X-Files-like in its convoluted conspiracy thinking, but given the reality distortion bubble Microsoft seems to be in, who knows any more?

Regardless, Dell is showing Microsoft the way to promote Vista while keeping XP an ongoing concern. If HP, Toshiba, Gateway and others showed the same brass as Dell, this issue would evaporate overnight. Let's hope they do.

Early on, OLPC decides to go open source, to save money on the software on these ultracheap PCs as well as to get a leaner OS than what the commercial world offers. Less intensive equipment is needed, reducing costs even further.

Now we see that OLPC may switch to Windows XP, as Negroponte says that the open source Sugar GUI on the Linux-based OLPC is inferior in several ways, including being able to run the Flash files common to educational Web sites.

Negroponte is right to move away from the utopian vision that led OLPC to an all-open-source-based approach. Kudos for trying, but the OLPC experience shows that good intentions don't necessarily lead to good software.

Look how long the concept of desktop Linux has been around: a decade. Now look at how few desktop Linux PCs there are. Red Hat and Novell have pulled away from the consumer-oriented desktop Linux development, leaving Ubuntu to cheer on the cause to its small clique.

With all the antipathy toward Microsoft over the years, you'd think the open source community could have developed a credible desktop OS and related application stack during the past decade. But it has not.

For OLPC's original open source goals to be realized, the open source community needed to come together and champion desktop Linux for real. Instead, it remains the same mess of incomprehensible GUIs, hardware incompatibilities and extremely limited application options. It would be cruel to subject kids in any nation to that as their primary computing experience.

Open source has a very mixed track record. There are considerably more failures than successes. That's OK -- commercial offerings have high failure rates as well. But open source, I believe, is more prone to failure because without a string champion who can both envision the right software and then deliver it as code, the open source project succumbs to multiple agendas and apathy. That's essentially what Negroponte criticized Sugar for.

Linux was essentially the creation of Linus Torvalds, who then brought it to the community for refinement. Without Torvalds' foundational effort, I don't think that Linux would be as popular and useful as it is today. Other open source successes -- Apache, JBoss, Firefox -- had similar leadership and commitment up front.

In the case of an alternative to Windows and Mac OS, the open source community has not shown that leadership or delivered on that vision.

Fortunately for OLPC, Microsoft has decided to keep a very inexpensive version of XP available to poor countries, one whose hardware requirements are not nearly as high-end as what the regular XP version (or Mac OS X) would require. Had Microsoft not done so -- and it's key to note that Apple has not done the same -- the failure of desktop Linux could have doomed the OLPC effort. With Microsoft's XP Starter Edition, there's still a chance for its dream to come true.

The desktop Linux community -- at least those who support the Sugar and OLPC efforts -- feels betrayed by Negroponte. But they betrayed themselves. The open source community likes to cite the wisdom of the crowds, but it often suffers from the tragedy of the commons.

When asked whether Microsoft plans to offer a development platform in the cloud, Turner grinned and said pointedly: "We are not announcing anything today." Given the strength of Microsoft's developer base, and the recent announcement of Google App Engine as a cloud-based development platform, Microsoft has every incentive to launch a hosted platform for developing Web applications as soon as possible.

[As Microsoft and other vendors reveal new services, the platform lock-in game moves to the cloud, thereby bringing an entirely new set of risks for customers. But there's a right way -- and a wrong way -- to plan for such lock-in.]

Much talk was devoted to which enterprise servers and applications would be offered on demand either by Microsoft or its partners. Turner put special emphasis on SharePoint, which as a collaboration tool is well suited to deployment in the cloud, and as a portal platform offers the potential to wrap enterprise, desktop, and Web apps into a unified user interface.

And what of desktop virtualization, where Microsoft could host entire desktop environments for customers? "Most large customers would give us their desktops today and say, 'you go ahead and manage them,'" said Turner, who acknowledged that Microsoft already has desktop virtualization pilot programs in place with a few select customers. At this point, he said, Microsoft is gathering feedback and "looking hard" at this area, with no timeframe for commercial availability. He agreed, though, that Microsoft's combination of desktop and Dynamics enterprise apps puts the company in a unique position to provide fully integrated application environments to customers via desktop virtualization.

Tim O'Brien, Senior Director of Microsoft Platforms, provided additional detail, noting that Microsoft is looking at on-demand versions of a whole range of software, including identity management. If Microsoft plans to go down that road again, what had it learned from the Hailstorm debacle years ago? "We should have offered customers a choice of where they wanted to put data about themselves, instead of trying to maintain all of it."

Choice is the Microsoft mantra when it comes to software plus services. If customers want locally installed software, Microsoft will provide it as it always has. If they want a customized, on-demand suite of applications hosted by a Microsoft partner, they should have that choice, too. And if they want software-as-a-service hosted by Microsoft, the company is rearchitecting Exchange, SharePoint, Office Communications Server, and other software for multitenancy.

For the latter purpose, Microsoft is creating its own massive datacenter facilities "you can see from space," says O'Brien -- in Texas, Illinois, Ireland, and other locations. At long last, Microsoft's commitment to on-demand computing seems very real. "If you're going to go in, you'd better get all in," O'Brien said.

[For analysis of Microsoft's Tuesday news concerning Dynamics CRM, at which it also foreshadowed services that will follow in July, read Microsoft reaches for the cloud.]

The idea of cloud computing is highly appealing, as it helps free up IT resources for generic or at least isolatable technologies so that IT can focus on projects that add differentiating value to their companies. Like packaged apps, suites, and outsourcing before it, cloud computing will be a key part of the IT toolbox in coming years.

But entrusting the cloud with parts of your IT -- especially now with the move by cloud providers to offer an entire platform, not just one or more apps -- does carry the same lock-in risk you get by depending on an enterprise app vendor's platform, whether that be Oracle Fusion, Microsoft SharePoint, IBM WebSphere, or SAP NetWeaver.

And it may carry more risk, since you're dependent on not only the cloud provider's platform, but also the vendor's ability to provision it.

There have been a series of high-profile outages of cloud providers, including Salesforce.com a couple years ago, Research in Motion more recently, and Hewlett-Packard this week. So IT should be worried.

But not so much that it avoids cloud computing. The emergence of cloud providers will help counterbalance the power of the traditional enterprise app vendors, offering some leverage against their lock-in strategies.

And if you don't get too dependent on cloud providers' platforms and instead focus on their apps, it'll be easier to migrate from one cloud provider to another should the need arise. Just be sure you can get your data and any associated custom business logic out quickly and in a portable format. Otherwise, you're dead.

By the way, lock-in in and of itself is not bad. A truly well-designed ecosystem can make IT's job a lot easier, in a way well worth the loss of control that a vendor-owned environment requires. Just be sure that the areas you are locked into are the ones you choose to be locked into -- or, as a vendor would say, those for which you seek a technology partnership.

According to CNN, cell phone companies that voluntarily opt into the system will send text messages to subscribers in response to three types of events: Presidential alerts such as terrorist attacks; natural disasters, such as hurricanes, tornadoes or earthquakes; and child abductions or Amber alerts.

FCC chairman Kevin Martin said, "The ability to deliver accurate and timely warnings and alerts through cell phones and other mobile services is an important next step in our efforts to help ensure that the American public has the information they need to take action to protect themselves and their families prior to, and during, disasters and other emergencies."

The plan may sound like a good idea, but not everyone subscribes to text messaging. In addition, according to InformationWeek, "subscribers will be able to opt out of receiving the messages ... [which] sort of negates the benefit."

Hopefully, there will be other measures taken to comply with the WARN Act for those of us who either don't get or choose not to read text messages on our cell phones.