Microsoft software on more than Windows

People are surprise -- and some astonished -- that Microsoft would release software for an operating system other than Windows.

They shouldn't be. Microsoft has a long history of providing software on operating systems other than Windows.

What are they?

• PC-DOS and MS-DOS, of course. But that is, as mathematicians would say, a "trivial solution".
• Mac OS and Mac OS X. Microsoft supplied "Internet Explorer for Mac" on OS 7, although it has discontinued that product. Microsoft supplies "Office for Mac" as an active product.
• Unix. Microsoft supplied "Internet Explorer for Unix".
• OS/2. Before the breakup with IBM, Microsoft worked actively on several products for OS/2.
• CP/M. Before MS-DOS and PC-DOS there was CP/M, an operating system from the very not_microsoft company known as Digital Research. Microsoft produced a number of products for CP/M, mainly its BASIC interpreter and compilers for BASIC, FORTRAN, and COBOL.
• ISIS-II and TEKDOS. Two early operating systems which ran Microsoft BASIC.
• Any number of pre-PC era computers, including the Commodore 64, the Radio Shack model 100, and the NEC 8201, which all ran Microsoft BASIC as the operating system.

It is true that Microsoft, once it obtained dominance in the market with PC-DOS/MS-DOS (and later Windows) built software that ran only on its operating systems. But Microsoft has a long history of providing software for use on non-Microsoft platforms.

Today Microsoft provides software on Windows, Mac OS X, iOS, Android, and now Chrome. What this means is that Microsoft sees opportunity in all of these environments. And possibly, Microsoft may see that the days of Windows dominance are over.

That Windows is no longer the dominant solution may shock (and frighten) people. The "good old days" of "Windows as the standard" had their problems, and people grumbled and complained about things, but they also had an element of stability. One knew that the corporate world ran on Windows, and moving from one company to another (or merging two companies) was somewhat easy with the knowledge that Windows was "everywhere".

Today, companies have options for their computing needs. Start-ups often use MacBooks (and therefore Mac OS X). Large organizations have expanded their list of standard equipment to include Linux for servers and iOS for individuals. The market for non-Windows software is now significant, and Microsoft knows it.

I see Microsoft's expansion onto platforms other than Windows as a return to an earlier approach, one that was successful in the past. And a good business move today.

We program to the interface, thanks to Microsoft

Today's markets for PCs, for smart phones, and for tablets show a healthy choice of devices. PCs, phones, and tablets are all available from a variety of manufacturers, in a variety of configurations. And all run just about everything written for the platform (Android tablets run all Android applications, Windows PCs run all Windows applications, etc.).

We don't worry about compatibility.

It wasn't always this way.

When IBM delivered the first PC, it provided three levels of interfaces: hardware, BIOS, and DOS. Each level was capable of some operations, but the hardware level was the fastest (and some might argue the most versatile).

Early third-party applications for the IBM PC were programmed against the hardware level. This was an acceptable practice, as the IBM PC was considered the standard for computing, against which all other computers were measured. Computers from other vendors used different hardware and different configurations and were thus not compatible. The result was that the third-party applications would run on IBM PCs and IBM PCs only, not on systems from other vendors.

Those early applications encountered difficulties as IBM introduced new models. The IBM PC XT was very close to the original PC, and just about everything ran -- except for a few programs that made assumptions about the amount of memory in the PC. The IBM PC AT used a different keyboard and a different floppy disk drive, and some software (especially those that used copy-protection schemes) would not run or sometimes even install. The EGA graphics adapter was different from the original CGA graphics adapter, and some programs failed to work with it.

The common factor in the failures of these programs was their design: they all communicated directly with the hardware and made assumptions about it. When the hardware changed, their assumptions were no longer valid.

We (the IT industry) eventually learned to write to the API, the high-level interface, and not address hardware directly. This effort was due to Microsoft, not IBM.

It was Microsoft that introduced Windows and won the hearts of programmers and business managers. IBM, with its PS/2 line of computers and OS/2 operating system struggled to maintain control of the enterprise market, but failed. I tend to think that IBM's dual role in supplying hardware and software helped in that demise.

Microsoft supplied only software, and it sold almost no hardware. (It did provide things such as the Microsoft Mouse and the Microsoft Keyboard, but these saw modest popularity and never became standards.) With its focus on software, Microsoft made its operating system run on various hardware platforms (including processors such as DEC's Alpha and Intel's Itanium) and Microsoft focussed on drivers to provide functionality. Indeed, one of the advantages of Windows was that application programmers could avoid the effort of supporting multiple printers and multiple graphics cards. Programs would communicate with Windows and Windows would handle the low-level work of communicating with hardware. Application programmers could focus on the business problem.

The initial concept of Windows was the first step in moving from hardware to an API.

The second step was building a robust API, one that could perform the work necessary. Many applications on PCs and DOS did not use the DOS interface because it was limited, compared to the BIOS and hardware interfaces. Microsoft provided capable interfaces in Windows.

The third step was the evolution of Windows. Windows 3 evolved into Windows 3.1 (which included networking), Windows 95 (which included a new visual interface), and Windows 98 (which included support for USB devices). Microsoft also developed Windows NT (which provided pre-emptive multitasking) and later Windows 2000, and Windows XP.

With each generation of Windows, less and less of the hardware (and DOS) was available to the application program. Programs had to move to the Windows API (or a Microsoft-supplied framework such as MFC or .NET) to keep functioning.

Through all of these changes, Microsoft provided specifications to hardware vendors who used those specifications to build driver programs for their devices. This ensured a large market of hardware, ranging from computers to disk drives to printers and more.

We in the programming world (well, the Microsoft programming world) think nothing of "writing to the interface". We don't look to the hardware. When faced with a new device, our first reaction is to search for device drivers. This behavior works well for us. The early marketing materials for Windows were correct: application programmers are better suited to solving business problems than working with low-level hardware details. (We *can* deal with low-level hardware, mind you. It's not about ability. It's about efficiency.)

Years from now, historians of IT may recognize that it was Microsoft's efforts that lead programmers away from hardware and toward interfaces.

Windows needs easier upgrades

Microsoft, after years of dominance in the market, now faces competition. That competition, in the form of Apple's Mac OSX and in the form of Linux, forces Microsoft to make some changes.

One area for change is the update process for Windows. Microsoft needs to improve their game in this area.

I have several PCs; three of them run Windows. A relatively modern desktop runs Windows 8.1, a slightly older laptop runs Windows 7, and an ancient tower unit runs Windows XP. They all started with those same versions of Windows (except for the modern desktop which started with Windows 8 and was later upgraded to Windows 8.1).

In addition to the PCs running Windows, I have several PCs running Ubuntu Linux: two laptops running the "desktop" version and three tower PCs running the "server" version.

Ubuntu Linux provides new versions every six months. They have gotten quite good at it. Each April and October, new versions are released. Each April and October, my Ubuntu systems display messages indicating that new versions are available. The server versions, which use a command-line interface, display a simple message at sign-on, along with the command to download and install the new version. The desktop versions, which use a graphic interface, display a dialog with a button that says, roughly, "upgrade now".

Ubuntu makes it easy to upgrade. The current system informs me of the upgrade and provides the instructions to install it. The process is simple: download the new package, install it, and re-start the computer. (It is the only time I have to re-start Linux.)

Windows, in contrast, offers no such support. While the Windows 8 system did download and install the Windows 8.1 update, the Windows 7 machine has said nothing about an upgrade for Windows 8. And the Windows XP machine hums along quietly, too, mentioning nothing about upgrades. (To be fair, the hardware in that ancient PC is not sufficient for Windows 8, so maybe it knows what it is doing.)

I'm not asking for free updates to Windows 8. I recognize that Canonical and Microsoft have different business models. Canonical does not charge for updates (or even the first install) of Ubuntu Linux; Microsoft charges for a new install and each major upgrade. Paying for an update should be a simple affair: one is really paying for an activation code and the software just happens to come along.

Ubuntu Linux also provides a path for old, out-of-support versions. I installed version 11.10, which ran and promply told me that it was out of support, and also prompted me to upgrade. Imagine installing Windows XP today: would it prompt you to upgrade to a later version? (Ubuntu upgrades through versions; the Windows equivalent would be to upgrade from Windows XP to Windows Vista and then to Windows 7.)

Canonical has raised the bar for operating system updates. They work, they are simple, and they encourage people to move to supported versions. Microsoft must match this level of support in their products. The benefit for Microsoft is that people move to the latest version of Windows, which improves their uptake rate. The benefit for users is that they ... move to the latest version of Windows, which provides the latest security patches.

Corporations and large shops may choose to wait for upgrades. They may wish to test them and then roll them out to their users. That's possible too, through Windows' group policies. Individual users, through, have little to lose.

The center of the universe is moving

The real universe, the one in which we live and has planets and solar systems and galaxies, has no center. It is "finite but unbounded" which sounds a bit strange until you realize that the surface of the Earth is also finite but unbounded. There is no edge of the Earth, no end, no boundary. Yet it has a finite size. (The Earth as a planet has a center, but the surface of the Earth does not.)

The IT universe does have centers. For decades, the center of the hardware universe has been the desktop PC and the center of the software universe has been Microsoft Windows and applications for Windows.

That is changing. Windows is no longer the software center of the IT universe. The desktop PC is no longer the hardware center of the IT universe.

The center of the IT universe for consumers has shifted to Apple and Google. The popularity of the iPad, the iPhone, and Android phones shows this. Individuals are happy to purchase these devices. PCs, in contrast, are purchased grudgingly. The purchase of a PC does not instill excitement but resentment.

The center of the IT universe for enterprises remains close to PCs and Microsoft Windows, but it too is moving to cloud computing and mobile devices. Microsoft recognizes this; it has been expanding its Azure cloud services and selling tablets and phones. While it has had little success with mobile devices, it does enjoy some with cloud services. Microsoft is supporting multiple operating systems; its Office products now run on Apple iPads and Android devices.

What does this change mean for the rest of us?

Well, for consumers it means that we will see more options. Instead of the old world of "Windows-only applications running on Microsoft Windows on desktops or laptops", we will see services on Azure available on the device of our choosing.

For enterprises, the same options will appear. This fits in with the "Bring Your Own Device" philosophy, which shifts the costs of hardware from employers to employees.

For developers, the picture is more complex. The old method of developing an application (especially an enterprise application) for Windows only (because Windows was the center of the universe) must give way to a process that develops applications for multiple platforms. The new development paradigm must be mobile/cloud with multiple cloud apps and a solid cloud design.

Microsoft is supporting this new paradigm. Azure supports non-Microsoft products such as Linux. Visual Studio supports non-Microsoft products such as Git, and now targets iOS and Android in addition to Windows.

Almost overnight, the modern Windows-only applications have been graduated to the status of legacy systems.

Specialization can be good or bad

Technologies have targets. Some technologies, over time, narrow their targets. Two examples are Windows and .NET.

Windows was, at first, designed to run on multiple hardware platforms. The objective was an "operating environment" that would give Microsoft an opportunity to sell software for multiple hardware platforms. There were versions of Windows for the Zenith Z-100 and the DEC Rainbow; these computers had Intel processors and ran MS-DOS but used architectures different from the IBM PC. Later versions of Windows ran on PowerPC, DEC Alpha, and MIPS processors. Those variants have all ceased; Microsoft supports only Intel PC architecture for "real" Windows and the new Windows RT variant for ARM processors, and both of these run on well-defined hardware.

The .NET platform has also narrowed. Instead of machine architectures, the narrowing has been with programming languages. When Microsoft released .NET, it supplied compilers for four languages: C++, C#, Visual Basic, and Visual J#. Microsoft also made bold proclamations about the .NET platform supporting multiple languages; the implications were that other vendors would build compilers and that Java was a "one-trick pony".

Yet the broad support for languages has narrowed. It was clear from the start that Microsoft was supporting C# as "first among equals". The documentation for C# was more complete and better organized than the documentation for other languages. Other vendors did provide compilers for other languages (and some still do), but the .NET world is pretty much C# with a small set of VB fans. Microsoft's forays into Python and Ruby (the IronPython and IronRuby engines) have been spun off as separate projects; the only "expansion" language from Microsoft is F#, used for functional programming.

Another word for this narrowing of technology is "specialization". Microsoft focussed Windows on the PC platform; the code become specialized. The .NET ecosystem is narrowing to C#; our code is becoming specialized.

Specialization has its advantages. Limiting Windows to the PC architecture reduced Microsoft's costs and enabled them to optimize Windows for the platform. (Later, Microsoft would become strong enough to specify the hardware platform, and they made sure that advances in PC hardware meshed with improvements in Windows.)

Yet specialization is not without risk. When one is optimized for an environment (such as PC hardware or a language), it is hard to move to another environment. Thus, Windows is a great operating system for desktop PCs but a poor fit on tablets. Windows 8 shows that significant changes are needed to move to tablets.

Similarly, specializing in C# may lead to significant hurdles when new programming paradigms emerge. The .NET platform is optimized for C# and its object-oriented roots. Moving to another programming paradigm (such as functional programming) may prove difficult. The IronPython and IronRuby projects may provide some leverage, as may the F# language, but these are quite small compared to C# in the .NET ecosystem.

Interestingly, the "one-trick pony" environment for Java has expanded to include Clojure, Groovy, and Scala, as well as Jython and JRuby. So not all technologies narrow, and Sun's Oracle's Java may avoid the trap of over-specialization.

Picking the target for your technology is a delicate balance. A broad set of targets leads to performance issues and markets with little return. A narrow set of targets reduces costs but foregoes market penetration (and revenue) and may leave you ill-prepared for a paradigm shift. You have to chart your way between the two.

I didn't say it would be easy.

The post-PC era is about coolness or lack thereof

Some have pointed to the popularity of tablets as the indicator for the imminent demise of the PC. I look at the "post PC" era not as the death of the PC, but as something worse: PCs have become boring.

Looking back, we can see that PCs started with lots of excitement and enthusiasm, yet that excitement has diminished over time.

First, consider hardware:

• Microcomputers were cool (even with just a front panel and a tape drive for storage)
• ASCII terminals were clearly better than front panels
• Storing data on floppy disks was clearly better than storing data on tape
• Hard drives were better than floppy disks
• Color monitors were better than monochrome displays
• High resolution color monitors were better than low resolution color monitors
• Flat panel monitors were better than CRT monitors

These were exciting improvements. These changes were *cool*. But the coolness factor has evaporated. Consider these new technologies:

• LED monitors are better than LCD monitors, if you're tracking power consumption
• Solid state drives are better than hard drives, if you look hard enough
• Processors after the original Pentium are nice, but not excitingly nice

Consider operating systems:

• CP/M was exciting (as anyone who ran it could tell you)
• MS-DOS was clearly better than CP/M
• Windows 3.1 on DOS was clearly better than plain MS-DOS
• Windows 95 was clearly better than Windows 3.1
• Windows NT (or 2000) was clearly better than Windows 95 (or 98, or ME)

But the coolness factor declined with Windows XP and its successors:

• Windows XP was *nice* but not *cool*
• Windows Vista was not clearly better than Windows XP -- and many have argued that it was worse
• Windows 7 was better than Windows Vista, in that it fixed problems
• Windows 8 is (for most people) not cool

The loss of coolness is not limited to Microsoft. A similar effect happened with Apple's operating systems.

• DOS (Apple's DOS for Apple ][ computers) was cool
• MacOS was clearly better than DOS
• MacOS 9 was clearly better than MacOS 8
• Mac OSX was clearly better than MacOS 9

But the Mac OSX versions have not been clearly better than their predecessors. They have some nice features, but the improvements are small, and a significant number of people might say that the latest OSX is not better than the prior version.

The problem for PCs (including Apple Macintosh PCs) is the loss of coolness. Tablets are cool; PCs are boring. The "arc of coolness" for PCs saw its greatest rise in the 1980s and 1990s, a moderate rise in the 2000s, and now sees decline.

This is the meaning of the "post PC era". It's not that we give up PCs. It's that PCs become dull and routine. PC applications become dull and routine.

It also means that there will be few new things developed for PCs. In a sense, this happened long ago, with the development of the web. Then, the Cool New Things were developed to run on servers and in browsers. Now, the Cool New Things will be developed for the mobile/cloud platform.

So don't expect PCs and existing PC applications to vanish. They will remain; it is too expensive to re-build them on the mobile/cloud platform.

But don't expect new PC applications.

Welcome to the post-PC era.