Posted on 04/10/2005 6:06:02 AM PDT by infocats
TEN years ago, Microsoft unveiled Windows 95 in a way that suggested that the product's arrival was no less momentous than when humans stood upright for the first time. The company spent about $200 million introducing the operating system. That paid for festivities on the Microsoft campus (with Jay Leno as M.C.), rights to use the Rolling Stones song "Start Me Up" in a global advertising campaign and permission to bathe the Empire State Building at night with the Windows logo. It also loaded The Times of London with Windows 95 advertising that day, making the newspaper a one-day freebie, a first in its 307 years.
What was remarkable about the Windows 95 introduction was the acquiescence of customers, who participated so willingly in the spectacle. Microsoft arranged for retail outlets to open at midnight on the day the system would first be available, a stunt that proved as irresistible as klieg lights at a Hollywood premiere. One chain counted some 50,000 people lined up at its stores across the country.
These people were chasing an operating system, of all things - plumbing that serves a necessary function, to be sure, but of no more intrinsic interest than the pipes that snake below the floorboards of a house. In 1995, however, Microsoft managed to make the mundane appear life-changing. The Seattle Times quoted one happy midnight customer, standing with his wife, who predicted that "this is going to enhance our marriage."
Windows XP, introduced in 2001, could not match Windows 95's remarkable debut. We can hope that XP's successor, which has the code name "Longhorn" and is scheduled for release next year, will appear quietly, bringing us closer to the day when users need know no more about a PC's operating system than they do of the embedded software in a cellphone.
Longhorn's gestation has already extended much longer than originally planned. Rumors of its existence surfaced in 2001, when the system was said to have been chosen as a quick "intermediate" update of XP. Time passed, and the news media were permitted a sneak preview. But completion of even this, the interim release, came no closer. Determined to get it out the door by 2006, Microsoft decided in 2004 to remove a new file system for organizing data on the hard drive, what the company had earlier promoted as the heart of the new system. If and when this feature ever appears, it is unlikely to enhance anyone's marriage.
Regretful that it had announced an important feature that it subsequently had to remove, the company decided to remain quiet about other aspects for as long as possible. Microsoft has given software developers beta versions of two new components, for graphics and Web services, but these will be available for Windows XP customers, too. The company has yet to say what exactly will be a Longhorn-only improvement.
Microsoft's reticence cannot last much longer. In two weeks, it will be host for a conference for hardware vendors, setting down the minimum specifications that must be met in order to run Longhorn. You may be eager to know whether that PC on your desk will meet the specs. If your PC does not, it's unlikely that you will replace it just to be able to run the latest version of Windows. Michael Cherry, a senior analyst at Directions on Microsoft, a consulting firm based in Kirkland, Wash., observes that many PC users now treat their computers like TV sets.
"Unless the TV doesn't turn on," he says, "they won't replace them."
Mr. Cherry expressed skepticism about the appeal of enhanced graphics for him and others who spend most of their time using a word processor, an e-mail program and a browser. "How are 3-D graphics really going to change my life?" he wondered.
Another analyst, Rob Enderle, president of the Enderle Group, greets the system with more enthusiasm, predicting that Longhorn will provide "vast improvements in security." We can cheer this happy prospect, but at the same time we must ignore the snide laughs of Macintosh users who have yet to encounter a virus. No matter how solid and secure Longhorn's code appears, Microsoft will need a lot of independent voices providing verification and reassurance.
The professional caretakers of corporate PC's seem rather leery of Microsoft's promises these days, spurning the most recent package of security improvements and bug fixes offered for Windows XP. Last week, AssetMetrix Research Labs, a research firm based in Ottawa, released the results of a survey of 251 North American companies, measuring the adoption of Windows XP. Only 7 percent of companies had actively embraced the latest improvements, Service Pack 2, released six months ago. The improvements, it turns out, introduce software-compatibility problems. These can be overcome with tinkering but not without aggravation and additional cost for fixes that should not have been necessary in the first place.
Compatibility issues will loom larger in the future. Longhorn is unlikely to co-exist peaceably with existing software that sits atop the operating system. Mr. Enderle said that gaining enhanced security necessitates making a break with the complementary software of the past, which means "compatibility is going to suffer."
Windows XP may prove to be a tenacious paterfamilias, unwilling to move aside for the next generation. Security holes notwithstanding, it is the most stable version of Windows to date. That very stability will make it difficult for the company to market Longhorn as a release more important than XP itself, a prediction that Bill Gates, Microsoft's chairman, made in 2003.
Predictions do not fare well when the computing world moves faster than the lumbering mass of Microsoft's Windows division. Linux constitutes an alternative model, employing fleet feet and frequent releases.
Mark Lucovsky, a software engineer, recently described in his blog the process of writing code for a project like Longhorn and the long wait before it reaches a customer's PC. First, a bug fix or added feature is deposited in a source code control system, where it may sit for years. Eventually it is transferred into a product release and pressed into CD's. Months pass, even in the final stage, from release to manufacturing to arrival at the customer's receiving department. Slow.
By contrast, engineers who work on improvements for a newer form of operating system, the software that powers Web sites, can roll out work almost instantaneously. Mr. Lucovsky recounts how a friend at Amazon discovered a performance issue, found a fix, tested it and had it in place, all in a day. "Not a single customer had to download a bag of bits, answer any silly questions, prove that they are not software thieves, reboot their computers, etc.," he wrote. "The software was shipped to them, and they didn't have to lift a finger."
MR. LUCOVSKY'S remarks are of interest because he knows a thing or two about developing operating systems. He was a senior architect of Windows NT, was the chief keeper of the keys for the source code and was named by Microsoft in 2000 as one among its inaugural batch of distinguished engineers. Recently, after 16 years at Microsoft, however, he said he decided that he had been wrong in thinking that Microsoft knew best "how to ship software."
It was other companies, the ones who understood the potential of the Internet and software-as-a-service, that were best able to deliver benefits to customers "efficiently and quickly," he said. He resigned from Microsoft and has joined one of those other companies: Google.
Randall Stross is a historian and author based in Silicon Valley. E-mail: ddomain@nytimes.com.
I used to work at a very small software company with no version control software. I used to taunt the testers by fixing a problem while they were on the phone describing it. I would say I couldn't replicate the problem, and could they try it again.
Ah, the good old days.
"I have heard a lot of the chatter from people who advise not to install Service Pack 2. I found this really odd, as I have been running it on my own 3 computers for months before it was even released to the public. I love Service Pack 2!
I installed SP2 on my main computer in desperation. I was constantly being inundated with adware, and no matter what I did, my computer would get infected again and again. I had heard that SP2 had "Advanced Security Technologies", and although I don't generally fall for Microsoft's techno-speak, I was willing to try anything.
Well, I'm here to tell you folks, I haven't run a single Adaware or Spybot scan on any of my computers in all of this time. I have not needed to!
I'm not saying that XP with SP2 is bullet-proof. I'm sure that the scoundrels that make viruses and spyware are eventually going to devise new techniques to penetrate XP's security. But for now, I'm a super happy computer geek.
I'm writing this because, what occured to me is the difference between how I've been installing SP2 compared to a lot of other people.
As soon as I got my hands on the beta relase of SP2, I made my own XP CD with SP2 slipstreamed onto the disc. I have installed SP2 for dozens of my clients, but I always back up their data, format the hard drive, and do a "clean" install.
I would guess that a lot of other techs and end users are simply installing the SP2 patch, and it is possibly conflicting with existing drivers and/ or settings. Maybe that's why I've only had one bad experience with SP2, while everyone else in the industry is running around and, in my opinion, crying wolf about the woes of SP2.
I would suggest following the link in that statement to the article on 'slipstreaming'. Myself, I just may give it a shot after doing a full backup. Though it does seem to be an awful lot of work for just laying down a Service Pack.
Win95 was historic because it cut Apple's advantages down to where the hardware choice available for x86 PCs was worth more to the customer.
WinXP was important because it ended the need to choose between a real OS - WinNT - and an easy-to-use OS - Win98.
It is hard to see how Longhorn could be as important. It might make .NET more useful. But it's too late to save .NET from being a non-event.
| Compatibility issues will loom larger in the future. Longhorn is unlikely to co-exist peaceably with existing software that sits atop the operating system. Mr. Enderle said that gaining enhanced security necessitates making a break with the complementary software of the past, which means "compatibility is going to suffer."
|
I almost bought a mac (mini mac $499) yesterday until the tech help at CompUSA told me that i could not hook it up to my KVM switch. I like to be able to use a single keyboard/mouse/monitor for all my computers. Just hit a button for the one I need to work on. I run old P1 and P2 since I mostly just write java code and don't need a super duper cpu for that. But right now I need to simulate a server farm and need a box on my intra net with little more horse power. Suggestions are welcome, didn't what to buy a celeron PC, an AMD pc would be ok, but it ight be fun to have a mac hanging around.
As I understand it, Longhorn is a 64 bit OS. Apps will has to be ported to a 64 code or CPU needs 32bit co processor. Does intel have a 64bit CPU? AMD does and apps run ok on it.
| Does intel have a 64bit CPU?
|
Wasn't that when Apple fell off the tree? I think it was an Seattle Sue that crapped on the Apple after it fell.
Jobs has to be one of the stupidest men to ever head a big company. Both Gates and Jobs were shown the Graphical User Interface (Icons) developed in the Palo Alto research labs by Xerox. Both were impressed. Both decided to implement it.
Stupid Jobs decided to go from the Apple II to the Mac in one big jump. Gates knew that would be a disaster. No company running either DOS or Apple II was going to instantly transition to a graphical user interface. It would require a company to go from a command like interface to graphical in one jump. Companies demand time to gradually adopt new technology. To be successful an operating system had to support both the old (Character) and the new (Graphical) interface or be a very large failure.
The only group to stay with Apple were educators. If you need proof that educators don't understand the real world, just look at their decision to educate with a system used by far less than 10 percent of employers.
Jobs after the screw up of the LISA came out with the Mac. Which was totally incompatible with the Apple II.
Gates over a ten year period gradually went from DOS to Windows. Making sure that each version of Windows could support DOS applications. It was far more difficult than a clean break, but it was the only way to hold and grow market share.
It was a brilliant strategy. Apple lost market share by making the immediate transition. Gates gained market share by taking 10 years to make the transmission.
Gates faced the problem of how to make a single process, single user operating system compatable with a multi user multi process operating system. It would have been much much easier to just do a new multi user multi tasking operationg system. Jobs took the easy way out. It destroyed Apple's chance of ever being a major player again.
Companies like Lotus and Word Perfect went with copy protection to keep people from "stealing" their software. Gates did not. He knew the people taking the software were mostly employees of big corporations. Gates knew they would have their company buy a "stealable" software rather than buy a better software that they couldn't steal. There was no way the employees were going to buy personal copies of Word Perfect and Lotus. Typical of Gates oppostion, they only looked at their spreadsheets. Gates understood what was really happening and what real customers would do.
Gates watched Word and Excel take nearly all the market share from the superior products of Lotus and Word Perfect.
If you argue that Gates doesn't know what he is doing, then you have to confront the fact that the people at Apple, Lotus and Word Perfect knew even less.
Jobs only understood what the technology could do and did it. Jobs focused on what he wanted to do. Gates focused on what customers wanted.
At every stage of the contest, Gates understood how consumers would react to technology and sales policy. Gates gave them what they wanted.
What ever happened to Apple 'Newton'? He-he.
from my reading I have concluded AMD is blowing the doors off intel. Well if the x86 world gets itself into all kinds of compatablity problems that will open the door to the PowerPC world of Macs and whatever IBM has up it's sleeve. Thinking round here is that IBM rid itself of x86 PCs so it could reinvent the PC based on PowerPC/Unix OS (Linux/OSX/AIX/New Java?). If so that would be a powerful competitor to x86. Sun, IBM, Mac vrs MS. Mini Mac might be the opening salvo.
| amd 64bit 4k+ w/ 2 gigs of ram and sata raid
|
Jealousy, hatred and unadmitted admiration all rolled into one. The first two are outgrowths of the third. SP2 didn't cause any problems for me at all. Re: SP2 and bad results in the corporate world.....The root problem is as always, between the chair and keyboard and in this case the sys admins and techs not being up to snuff.
Don't be such a cheapskate. Invest in more RAM that will give to you a total of 1 Gig and you'll see a huge improvement.
No, I am not associated with MS or RAM mfrs in any way.....just a home user.
It amazes me that INTEL learned nothing from the Apples attempt to go from the Apple II to the Mac, and Gates transition from Dos to Windows.
AMD has a real understanding of the situation.
The biggest mistake ever made was when Intel refused to renew the contract for AMD and Harris to pay royalties to make Intel chips.
With out the renewed contract the only way AMD could survive was by doing their own clones. Yes at first AMD would be a year behind INTEL. But Intel went from getting a cut off of every CPU chip AMD made to getting a real competitor.
Once a technology company has real competition, it must win every contest for every generation. The odds say it is only a matter of time until the competition wins a round.
If the competition wins a couple of rounds in a row, INTEL can become the number two player and may never recover. It would have been far better to let AMD pay royalties to make Intel designed chips. That way Intel could afford to make a mistake and AMD could only suffer too.
Most big companies that have only known victory, haven't a clue about how to recover from their first defeat.
Huh? The only hang-up I've heard of is that the Mac uses USB for keyboards, while many existing PC installations use PS2 keyboards. Hence, you would need either a) a new USB keyboard, or b) a PS2-to-USB converter to stick in front of the KVM switch.
Note: You have to also figure out if your video is VGA or DVI. DVI KVM switches are a bit newer, and more expensive.....
You should be able to run a quick google search to see if you'll have major issues or not. Also remember: CompUSA is full of dunderheads - that's why they're there selling computers, rather than doing something useful with 'em.
Actually, Newton Handwriting Recoginition (i.e. "Rosetta") lives on in Mac OS 10.3. Hook up a graphics tablet, and then active "Inkwell" in the control panel, and start writing away. That's all it takes.
Actually, I'm writing this reply to you right NOW on my tablet. Admittedy, it is much slower than typing...
But it's cool and hip, with shiny Steve-approved plastic trim.
Typical Mac user. Think Different - like all the other Macmoonies.
I installed SP2 on my 2 networked computers at home the day it was released and have had no problems with either one. I used the network download so that I only had to download it to one computer and installed in from that.
It wasn't "Buddy Holly" by any chance, was it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
This is a big deal if it's true. If in addition to buying BumSteer, you also have to upgrade Office, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Acrobat, and a hundred other things you've collected over the years, it could turn into a thousand-dollar software upgrade. That's a serious impediment to adoption. I can't believe Microsoft would shoot themselves that way.