Will the Next Version of Windows Be Worth the Wait?

New York Times ^ | April 10, 2005 | Randall Stross

[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.

[HAL9000]

Should I pursue VNC more or maybe look at Apple's Remote Desktop; any suggestions?

I haven't found a universal solution yet. I use Apple Remote Desktop and OSXvnc for Mac servers, RealVNC for Linux and Windows servers, and Chicken of the VNC, VNCThing and ARD for Mac clients. I try various combinations until finding the best one for a particular server platform). Obviously, I'd recommend trying the free stuff first.

ARD has built-in VNC clients and servers, but they're not as good as some of the free implementations.

Running ARD's native Mac-to-Mac connection in black-and-white mode is the fastest way to run. I don't think VNC supports black-and-white connections yet. ARD is well worth the money if you have several remote Macs to support.

[D-fendr]

Thanks very much. I did a little more research after reading your reply.

I think I will dive in and try a flavor of PC client (perhaps TightVNC) to OSXvnc server and hope the speed is acceptable and the hassles are fewer - once I get past the installs and firewall configs.

Greatly appreciate your help.

[HAL9000]

I'm not familiar with TightVNC, but it should work. I forgot to mention that RealVNC has a client for Windows, so try that if TightVNC has problems. OSXvnc is probably better than the Panther/ARD VNC option, but I expect Tiger will change that.

Some of the problems I've seen with various VNC client/server combinations include firewall issues, slow connections, and just plain refusing to connect. Watch the log files in Console.app in the Utilities for error messages. Good luck.

[pageonetoo]

So, do you wake up and kiss your icon of Bill Gates every morning, and kiss him good night, as well.

You made a nice long post, full of bull feces...

The only reason ms did better was from gum't bizness requiring private bizness to submit on 5 1/4 in wordperfect...

The reason educators chose Mac was the result of a marketing decision by Apple. They demonstrated a simple-to-use mouse-driven appliance to them, and they bought it. Nobody needed to learn C> commands. My, then 3 yr old, daughter used my new Mac in 1984, with little direction from me...

And lastly, so what? I will continue to use my Macs... and my Apple stock has made me a over 700% in the past two years!

Longhorn will not make Windoze any better. It will just make the pc "network administrator" wonks earn their pay installing and debugging the crap!

Me, I'll just get my 15 yr old daughter to take care of our 7 computers, when we get the latest from the core...

[pageonetoo]

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 don't even know what a KVM switch does...

What I do know, is that my Mac needs no drivers for most devices. They are intuitively found by the OS, and placed where they need to be.

I wouldn't let a $29 keyboard, and $10 mouse stop me from enjoying good technology. Besides, it will be a chance to try the integration yourself. Someone has already done it, I would bet... and if you do a search, can find a way!

If I were buying today, it would be a $1300 G5 iMac... or spend the extra to write DVD's and view a 20"! I have a G5 desktop, with a almost new 30" display. You gotta see it, to love it! I carry a 17" G4 PowerBook on the road...

[goldstategop]

Usually a monitor software glitch. Windows XP is rock-solid and doesn't suffer the dreaded "Blue Screen Of Death" attack in the event of a crash. It just reboots, does a hard drive check and boots back up to the desktop.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Sam Cree]

Windows 98 works just fine for me. When it no longer gets the job done, I'll probably need a new computer as well.

When I reach that point, I'm thinking strongly of switching to a Mac. Probably a laptop.

[jpsb]

A KVM switch let me access a several computers from a single keyboard and mouse. It's really nice if you have to switch back and forth between computers all the time, which I have to do. Develop/test on one. Deploy on another and Freep on a third.

I wound up getting a x86. Wanted the mac, and will get one some day, but I needed the box for work and didn't want to take a chance on the mac not being a good choice for java/web services development. I also read that the mini mac has a striped down version of OSX and I that is what did it for me. I would have needed a full blown Unix OS as fall back if KVM hardware did not work or was too costly.

[pageonetoo]

...didn't want to take a chance on the mac not being a good choice for java/web services development.

Mac is a great platform for your javascript, and for web development, particularly if you like forefox! ... IMO, your decision was lacking proper input!

The OS on the box is the same on my G5 desktop...

The mini is a G4, so why don't you look on eBay, or somewhere and buy a used one for a couple of hundred... then plug and play!

[jpsb]

I will, thanks for the input. Java not javascript! I have my pride ya know.

[pageonetoo]

Java not javascript!

Just showing my ignorance. I could not tell you the difference.

I was first exposed to computing in the 60's. I was a Navy FT (fire control technician...aiming guns, not extinguishing fires). We had a Mk 1A analog computer.

After Navy, I was electronically interested, but too involved making money. I played with a Timex-Sinclair 64, and learned a little Basic. I graduated to a Commodore 64, and a 128 (64 was much better). I bought an Amiga, and when Mac was introduced, I waited... for 4 months.

I was convinced when I looked at IBM and AutoCad. I would have had to put my life on hold for a month of schooling on AutoCad (and that c> thing), but opted for a FatMac with a 5 megabyte Internal Hard Drive. I bought a 9-pin ImageWriter, which was replaced with a $4000 LaserWriter (1986).

I have had my share of Macs, but NO PC's. The closest, was using my brothers Windoze machine, on vacation at his place. I had trouble with the poor emulation they did, of the Mac environment.

I don't claim to know about computing. I just use the thing to do what I have to do...

Click the image to see part of the new "Tiger"... Gates toy does nothing like this guy!

[Loud Mime]

I agree with you. I love the XP program, as it fills all my needs in business and reliability. I'm running an amd 64 chip with a gig of ram and everything just purrs.

When I made the change from 98 VII to W2000 I noticed that the hard drive didn't work as much, but still didn't like how the OS worked with some software systems. Now, with XP Pro, I'm happy; and I don't game.

[jpsb]

Wow, looks good, there is difinately a mac in my future. thanks.

[LIConFem]

I use as little of MS's garbage as possible.

Red Hat bump! :o)

[TheStickman]

I concur. My problem with XP was figuring out I needed to upgrade my hardware in order to run the OS properly. My machine is primarily a DAW (digital audio workstation), running pro-sound apps for multi-tracking and mastering. We have 4 machines networked and running smoothly with XP SP2.

Now, if there were only the same quality pro-sound apps and gaming choices for linux I would certainly give it another look. However, I'm not gonna turn my Corvette into a VW bug just to be free from M$.

[BibChr]

Yep; all that and NO MORE "ILLEGAL OPERATION" CRASHES!

Dan

[Swordmaker]

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.

Why not? Lots of people are doing it with no problems.