Windows XP remains popular, despite its age, its limitations, and its lack of support from Microsoft.
The desire to keep Windows XP shows that users want stable, reliable operating systems that they can install and then ignore. Well, perhaps not ignore, but at least not think about.
Things were not always this way. Early in the age of Windows, corporations, individuals, hobbyists, and programmers all looked forward to new versions of Microsoft's operating system. Windows 3.1 was desired for its networking capabilities; Windows 95 for its user interface (in contrast to Windows 8); and Windows NT for its security. Windows 2000 brought all of those features together, and was eagerly adopted.
I think that the lesson of Windows 8 (and Windows Vista, and Windows 7) is this: We no longer care about the operating system.
In the old days, operating systems were important -- much more than today. Certain applications would run on only certain operating systems; pick the wrong operating system and you could not run your application. Not running your application meant that you could not get your work done, or deliver for your client.
Today, most applications run on most operating systems. Yes, most Microsoft products run only on Windows, but other products run on Windows, MacOS, and Linux. Moreover, web apps run in browsers, and most web apps run in the popular browsers (Firefox, Chrome, IE, and Safari) and care nothing about the operating system.
Applications are not tied so closely to operating systems as they were.
The mobile world has made operating systems commodities, with equivalent apps available on iOS and Android. In the mobile world, very few people care about the operating system.
With less dependence on the operating system, we tend to think of other things. We still think of performance -- although modern processors are fast enough for most tasks and cloud computing can provide computing power for large tasks.
Today we tend to think of portability (an app for my phone) and network connectivity (coverage by mobile service provider).
The operating system, for most people, is a means to an end but it is not the end. We think of it as we think of electricity, or of sidewalks: there and ready for us to use, but nothing distinguishing about them. They are becoming part of "the infrastructure", that part of our world that we use without thinking about it.
To be sure, there are some folks who do care about operating systems. The system designers, to start. And I'm sure that Microsoft's product teams care about the features in Windows (as do Apple's product designers care about features in MacOS and iOS). Hobbyists and tinkerers enjoy exploring new versions of operating systems. Support teams for large organizations, security analysts, and the "black hat" hackers who look for vulnerabilities -- they all care about operating systems.
But walk down the street and ask individuals at random, and most will answer that they don't care. Some may not even know which operating system are used by their devices!
We've moved on to other things.
Showing posts with label Windows 8. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Windows 8. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Installing Windows 8 is not always easy
I think Microsoft is missing a useful tool for would-be Windows 8 users.
The tool I am thinking about is a compatibility checker for PC hardware. I have an old PC and I am considering Windows 8 for it. My big question is: Will Windows 8 run on it?
I would prefer an answer to that question before committing to the purchase of Windows 8.
The Microsoft web site is very good about listing the requirements for running Windows 8. They specify a processor speed, memory, and disk space. Those are easy (for me) to verify. Microsoft also mandates that the graphics card be a "Microsoft DirectX 9 graphics device". That requirement is not so easy to verify.
The PC in question is a vintage Dell Optiplex GX-280 desktop PC. I'm pretty sure that it predates DirectX 9.
Given the difficulties in verifying hardware, I would think that a utility would be available. Something small and simple, that would run and say "yes" or "no". Yet I find no such utility.
Now, there are utilities that you can run on existing Windows systems and these utilities check the hardware and your current applications. They assume, however, that you are already running a version of Windows.
Did I mention that my PC is *not* running Windows? Did I mention that my PC is running a variant of Ubuntu Linux?
That means that I cannot run the Microsoft-supplied, Windows-only, compatibility checker utility.
From what I can see, my only option is to attempt to install Windows 8, use the activation code (it's the first thing that the install program requires), and hope that Windows finds my system acceptable. That's a risk (in money and time) I would rather not take.
This approach is very different from most Linux distros, which allow one to run Linux in "live" mode from the CD (and not touching your hard drive) to verify compatibility.
I don't know that Microsoft needs a "run off the CD" mode for Windows. The option to verify hardware would be nice -- perhaps as the first step of the install, and before the activation code. Such an option would let me confirm my installation before committing.
If not part of the install program, perhaps a stand-alone utility that runs under Linux. (Perhaps even an open source utility!) Something one could build with gcc and run from the command line. It doesn't have to be fancy -- since anyone using it would be a Linux user with sysadmin experience. (If you're installing a new operating system, you're a sysadmin.)
Perhaps Microsoft considered this capability, and decided against it. Such capability does add to the complexity of the setup disk. As a practical matter, most PCs will be running Windows, and configurations such as mine are a very small minority. I could easily see Microsoft choosing to invest the effort in other directions.
Yet I cannot help but think that in today's market Windows must compete against Mac OS and Linux. Tools to assist people converting from non-Windows to Windows might be a good idea.
The tool I am thinking about is a compatibility checker for PC hardware. I have an old PC and I am considering Windows 8 for it. My big question is: Will Windows 8 run on it?
I would prefer an answer to that question before committing to the purchase of Windows 8.
The Microsoft web site is very good about listing the requirements for running Windows 8. They specify a processor speed, memory, and disk space. Those are easy (for me) to verify. Microsoft also mandates that the graphics card be a "Microsoft DirectX 9 graphics device". That requirement is not so easy to verify.
The PC in question is a vintage Dell Optiplex GX-280 desktop PC. I'm pretty sure that it predates DirectX 9.
Given the difficulties in verifying hardware, I would think that a utility would be available. Something small and simple, that would run and say "yes" or "no". Yet I find no such utility.
Now, there are utilities that you can run on existing Windows systems and these utilities check the hardware and your current applications. They assume, however, that you are already running a version of Windows.
Did I mention that my PC is *not* running Windows? Did I mention that my PC is running a variant of Ubuntu Linux?
That means that I cannot run the Microsoft-supplied, Windows-only, compatibility checker utility.
From what I can see, my only option is to attempt to install Windows 8, use the activation code (it's the first thing that the install program requires), and hope that Windows finds my system acceptable. That's a risk (in money and time) I would rather not take.
This approach is very different from most Linux distros, which allow one to run Linux in "live" mode from the CD (and not touching your hard drive) to verify compatibility.
I don't know that Microsoft needs a "run off the CD" mode for Windows. The option to verify hardware would be nice -- perhaps as the first step of the install, and before the activation code. Such an option would let me confirm my installation before committing.
If not part of the install program, perhaps a stand-alone utility that runs under Linux. (Perhaps even an open source utility!) Something one could build with gcc and run from the command line. It doesn't have to be fancy -- since anyone using it would be a Linux user with sysadmin experience. (If you're installing a new operating system, you're a sysadmin.)
Perhaps Microsoft considered this capability, and decided against it. Such capability does add to the complexity of the setup disk. As a practical matter, most PCs will be running Windows, and configurations such as mine are a very small minority. I could easily see Microsoft choosing to invest the effort in other directions.
Yet I cannot help but think that in today's market Windows must compete against Mac OS and Linux. Tools to assist people converting from non-Windows to Windows might be a good idea.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Windows 7 is "good enough" - and that's a problem
A large portion of the Windows user community has complained -- loudly -- about Windows 8 and its new user interface. People, as individuals or as members of a corporation, have made their displeasure known. They have written articles in trade magazines. They have posted blog entries. They have given presentations. (I suspect that there are anti-Windows-8 videos on YouTube.)
Most folks care more about getting their work done and less about the operating system. They don't want Windows 8, or even Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excel. They want their invoices, they want their estimates, they want their analyses.
The technology stack of PC hardware, Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, and specialty software are tools. They are a means to the end, not the end.
Changes to that technology stack, when invisible, are unimportant. An update that fixes a security hole is good, especially when it has no effect on the workflow. After the update, Windows boots as usual, applications run as usual, and the work gets done.
Visible changes, such as removing the "Start" button, affect the workflow. The introduction of "ribbon" menus in Microsoft Office were also met with complaints.
The problem facing Microsoft is that their software (Windows, Office, SQL Server, etc.) has become good enough for use in the workplace. It has been good enough for years, which is why people use old versions.
In the good old days, new versions of software were clearly better. Windows 3.1 was much better than DOS. Windows 95 was better than Windows 3.1. Windows XP was better than Windows 95. People could see the benefit and were willing to move to the later version.
But once software becomes good enough, the benefits of a later version are less clear. Windows Vista was not clearly better than Windows XP. Windows 7 was better than Windows Vista, but perhaps not that much better than Windows XP.
Windows 8 is clearly different from Windows 7 (and Windows XP). But is it better? People perceive Windows XP and Windows 7 as good enough.
Which is ironic, as Microsoft built their empire on software that was good enough. They shipped products when those products were good enough to compete in the market. They improved products to become good enough to deliver revenue.
Microsoft Windows 8 must compete against Windows 7, and Windows 7 is good enough.
Two observations:
The current users of Windows believe their current systems to be good enough, and they are unwilling to change without clear benefits. The features of Windows 8 are insufficient to warrant a change.
A vendor cannot force products upon the market. (This lesson was made earlier with Microsoft "Bob" and IBM "Topview".) Users must see benefits, not merely features, in a product.
Most folks care more about getting their work done and less about the operating system. They don't want Windows 8, or even Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excel. They want their invoices, they want their estimates, they want their analyses.
The technology stack of PC hardware, Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, and specialty software are tools. They are a means to the end, not the end.
Changes to that technology stack, when invisible, are unimportant. An update that fixes a security hole is good, especially when it has no effect on the workflow. After the update, Windows boots as usual, applications run as usual, and the work gets done.
Visible changes, such as removing the "Start" button, affect the workflow. The introduction of "ribbon" menus in Microsoft Office were also met with complaints.
The problem facing Microsoft is that their software (Windows, Office, SQL Server, etc.) has become good enough for use in the workplace. It has been good enough for years, which is why people use old versions.
In the good old days, new versions of software were clearly better. Windows 3.1 was much better than DOS. Windows 95 was better than Windows 3.1. Windows XP was better than Windows 95. People could see the benefit and were willing to move to the later version.
But once software becomes good enough, the benefits of a later version are less clear. Windows Vista was not clearly better than Windows XP. Windows 7 was better than Windows Vista, but perhaps not that much better than Windows XP.
Windows 8 is clearly different from Windows 7 (and Windows XP). But is it better? People perceive Windows XP and Windows 7 as good enough.
Which is ironic, as Microsoft built their empire on software that was good enough. They shipped products when those products were good enough to compete in the market. They improved products to become good enough to deliver revenue.
Microsoft Windows 8 must compete against Windows 7, and Windows 7 is good enough.
Two observations:
The current users of Windows believe their current systems to be good enough, and they are unwilling to change without clear benefits. The features of Windows 8 are insufficient to warrant a change.
A vendor cannot force products upon the market. (This lesson was made earlier with Microsoft "Bob" and IBM "Topview".) Users must see benefits, not merely features, in a product.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Steve Ballmer Steps Down
Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, announced that he would step down in the next twelve months. Folks have been quick to respond, some cheering and some asking the question: Was he pushed?
The almost-unanimous view of Ballmer's stewardship has been one of dismay if not outright failure. People cite Microsoft's delay into the tablet market, the poor reception of Windows 8, and other products such as the Kin and Zune. (With an occasional reference to "Microsoft Bob".)
I say "almost-unanimous" because I dissent from this view. Yes, Microsoft did enter the tablet market later than Apple and Google. Yes, Windows 8 is quite different from previous versions. But Microsoft has bee giving its customers what they want, and in that they are not to be considered a failure.
Microsoft's customers are mostly businesses, and they are a self-centered lot. I have seen several businesses respond to new versions of Windows, and the responses have been uniform: make this new version work like the old version.
Businesses, for the most part, do not want a new version of Windows. Businesses want to go about their business and not worry about computers or GUIs or databases. Many businesses today run Windows XP, seeing no need to move to later versions.
The complaints about Microsoft seem inconsistent. People criticize Microsoft for delivering the systems that they want, while also complain that Microsoft delivers nothing new. And now that Microsoft has delivered something new, people complain about that.
I think of Windows RT as a suitable operating system for tablets. I consider the Surface RT tablet a competitor in the iPad and Android tablets. A bit pricey perhaps, yet good technology. I consider the Surface Pro a compromise tablet, a transition from the classic Windows environment to Windows RT.
The lack of apps for the Surface RT is a problem, but only for the consumer market, and I view the Surface RT as a device for the office. In the office, it is not consumer apps that are important but the apps used by the business, many of them in-house apps. Businesses will create their own apps, just as they have created their own documents and spreadsheets.
I look on the Surface as a successful product. I see Windows RT as a valid path forward. I see Windows 8 as an interesting mix of the old and new technologies.
Given these accomplishments, I view Steve Ballmer as a success. He moved Microsoft into new directions and introduced new products. Microsoft's products did not take the world by storm, or establish a new monopoly. But they are worthy contenders.
The almost-unanimous view of Ballmer's stewardship has been one of dismay if not outright failure. People cite Microsoft's delay into the tablet market, the poor reception of Windows 8, and other products such as the Kin and Zune. (With an occasional reference to "Microsoft Bob".)
I say "almost-unanimous" because I dissent from this view. Yes, Microsoft did enter the tablet market later than Apple and Google. Yes, Windows 8 is quite different from previous versions. But Microsoft has bee giving its customers what they want, and in that they are not to be considered a failure.
Microsoft's customers are mostly businesses, and they are a self-centered lot. I have seen several businesses respond to new versions of Windows, and the responses have been uniform: make this new version work like the old version.
Businesses, for the most part, do not want a new version of Windows. Businesses want to go about their business and not worry about computers or GUIs or databases. Many businesses today run Windows XP, seeing no need to move to later versions.
The complaints about Microsoft seem inconsistent. People criticize Microsoft for delivering the systems that they want, while also complain that Microsoft delivers nothing new. And now that Microsoft has delivered something new, people complain about that.
I think of Windows RT as a suitable operating system for tablets. I consider the Surface RT tablet a competitor in the iPad and Android tablets. A bit pricey perhaps, yet good technology. I consider the Surface Pro a compromise tablet, a transition from the classic Windows environment to Windows RT.
The lack of apps for the Surface RT is a problem, but only for the consumer market, and I view the Surface RT as a device for the office. In the office, it is not consumer apps that are important but the apps used by the business, many of them in-house apps. Businesses will create their own apps, just as they have created their own documents and spreadsheets.
I look on the Surface as a successful product. I see Windows RT as a valid path forward. I see Windows 8 as an interesting mix of the old and new technologies.
Given these accomplishments, I view Steve Ballmer as a success. He moved Microsoft into new directions and introduced new products. Microsoft's products did not take the world by storm, or establish a new monopoly. But they are worthy contenders.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
The style curve
At a recent conference, a fellow attendee asked about best practices for the live tiles on Windows 8.
Live tiles are different from the standard icons in that they can show information and change over time. Windows 8 comes with a number of live tiles: the clock, news, Bing search, and entertainment are a few.
For the question of best practices, my take is that we're too early in what I call the "style curve" of Windows live tiles. The style curve is similar to the "hype curve", in which new technologies are born, receive some hype, then become disparaged as they fail to cure all of our ills, and finally become accepted as useful. See more about the hype curve on wikipedia.
The style curve applies to new technologies, and is similar to the hype curve in that a technology is created, given lots of attention, disparaged, and then accepted. Here are the phases:
Creation The technology is created and made available.
Experimentation People test out the new technology and test its limits.
Overuse People adopt the new technology and use it, but with poor judgement. They use it for too many things, or too many situations, or with too many combinations.
Avoidance People dislike the overuse (or the poor taste) and complain. Some actively avoid the new technology.
Best practices A few folks use the technology with good taste. They demonstrate that the technology can be used without offending people's sensibilities. The techniques they use are dubbed "best practices".
Acceptance The techniques of restrained use (the best practices) are adopted by most folks.
Previous technologies have followed this curve. Examples include typefaces and fonts in desktop publishing (and later word processing) and animated images in web pages.
Some readers will remember the early days of the web and some of the garish designs that were used. The memories of spinning icons and blinking text may still be painful. This was the "overuse" phase of the style cycle for web pages. Several shops banned outright the use of the blink tag -- the "avoidance" phase. Now people understand good design principles for web pages. (Which do not include the blink tag, thankfully.)
Desktop publishing, powered by Windows and laser printers, allowed people to use a multitude of typefaces and fonts in their documents. And use them they did. Today we have use a limited set of typefaces and fonts in any one document, and shops have style guides.
Coming back to live tiles, I think we are at the "experimentation" phase of the style cycle. We don't know the limits on live tiles and we don't know the best practices. We have to go through the "overuse" and "avoidance" phases before we can get to "best practices". In other words, the best practices are a matter of knowing what not to do. But we have to try everything to see what works and what doesn't work.
Be prepared for some ugly, garish, and annoying live tiles. But know that style will arrive in the future.
Live tiles are different from the standard icons in that they can show information and change over time. Windows 8 comes with a number of live tiles: the clock, news, Bing search, and entertainment are a few.
For the question of best practices, my take is that we're too early in what I call the "style curve" of Windows live tiles. The style curve is similar to the "hype curve", in which new technologies are born, receive some hype, then become disparaged as they fail to cure all of our ills, and finally become accepted as useful. See more about the hype curve on wikipedia.
The style curve applies to new technologies, and is similar to the hype curve in that a technology is created, given lots of attention, disparaged, and then accepted. Here are the phases:
Creation The technology is created and made available.
Experimentation People test out the new technology and test its limits.
Overuse People adopt the new technology and use it, but with poor judgement. They use it for too many things, or too many situations, or with too many combinations.
Avoidance People dislike the overuse (or the poor taste) and complain. Some actively avoid the new technology.
Best practices A few folks use the technology with good taste. They demonstrate that the technology can be used without offending people's sensibilities. The techniques they use are dubbed "best practices".
Acceptance The techniques of restrained use (the best practices) are adopted by most folks.
Previous technologies have followed this curve. Examples include typefaces and fonts in desktop publishing (and later word processing) and animated images in web pages.
Some readers will remember the early days of the web and some of the garish designs that were used. The memories of spinning icons and blinking text may still be painful. This was the "overuse" phase of the style cycle for web pages. Several shops banned outright the use of the blink tag -- the "avoidance" phase. Now people understand good design principles for web pages. (Which do not include the blink tag, thankfully.)
Desktop publishing, powered by Windows and laser printers, allowed people to use a multitude of typefaces and fonts in their documents. And use them they did. Today we have use a limited set of typefaces and fonts in any one document, and shops have style guides.
Coming back to live tiles, I think we are at the "experimentation" phase of the style cycle. We don't know the limits on live tiles and we don't know the best practices. We have to go through the "overuse" and "avoidance" phases before we can get to "best practices". In other words, the best practices are a matter of knowing what not to do. But we have to try everything to see what works and what doesn't work.
Be prepared for some ugly, garish, and annoying live tiles. But know that style will arrive in the future.
Monday, July 8, 2013
Microsoft's Future is not Windows
Many Windows users are hostile to Windows 8 and the Modern interface. They want Windows to remain what it is.
I think most people have defined Windows as "the thing that runs Microsoft Office". Graphic artists have defined Windows as "the thing that runs Photoshop". Developers have defined Windows as "the thing that runs Visual Studio". A few shops build turnkey scheduling and billing systems for doctors offices, a few others build turnkey point-of-sale systems. Those are the bounds of Windows.
Microsoft, on the other hand, views Windows as a product, a source of revenue.
A bounded market is limited. Microsoft knows this, and I suspect that the limited nature of Windows was a motivation for the Surface RT and Windows RT.
This difference between Microsoft and Windows users is the problem: Microsoft wants a growing market, and users want the existing technology. The two are not compatible.
As I see it, Microsoft's path forward is Windows RT, the new operating system that does not run existing Windows applications. Windows 8, with its support of classic Windows apps and its ability to run "Modern" Windows apps is a transition, a step from the old Windows to the new.
Abandoning the classic Windows API with its collection of applications is not a simple task. Many people rely on various applications. Users are unhappy with the idea of changing to a new platform.
But from Microsoft's view, the revenues (and profits) of classic Windows are limited. The sales of PCs are declining, as consumers switch from desktops to tablets. Businesses have PCs and may replace existing units, but they can also hang on to PCs and buy new ones only when necessary. And keeping the classic Windows product line (Windows, Office, Visual Studio, etc.) alive is expensive. The competition of products like Linux, LibreOffice, and Eclipse puts further limits on revenue. Classic Windows has declining revenue and constant (or growing) expenses.
Microsoft is moving its products to mobile/cloud not because it wants to, not because it delights in the torment of its customers, but because it must. The economics of the market are forcing this change.
I think most people have defined Windows as "the thing that runs Microsoft Office". Graphic artists have defined Windows as "the thing that runs Photoshop". Developers have defined Windows as "the thing that runs Visual Studio". A few shops build turnkey scheduling and billing systems for doctors offices, a few others build turnkey point-of-sale systems. Those are the bounds of Windows.
Microsoft, on the other hand, views Windows as a product, a source of revenue.
A bounded market is limited. Microsoft knows this, and I suspect that the limited nature of Windows was a motivation for the Surface RT and Windows RT.
This difference between Microsoft and Windows users is the problem: Microsoft wants a growing market, and users want the existing technology. The two are not compatible.
As I see it, Microsoft's path forward is Windows RT, the new operating system that does not run existing Windows applications. Windows 8, with its support of classic Windows apps and its ability to run "Modern" Windows apps is a transition, a step from the old Windows to the new.
Abandoning the classic Windows API with its collection of applications is not a simple task. Many people rely on various applications. Users are unhappy with the idea of changing to a new platform.
But from Microsoft's view, the revenues (and profits) of classic Windows are limited. The sales of PCs are declining, as consumers switch from desktops to tablets. Businesses have PCs and may replace existing units, but they can also hang on to PCs and buy new ones only when necessary. And keeping the classic Windows product line (Windows, Office, Visual Studio, etc.) alive is expensive. The competition of products like Linux, LibreOffice, and Eclipse puts further limits on revenue. Classic Windows has declining revenue and constant (or growing) expenses.
Microsoft is moving its products to mobile/cloud not because it wants to, not because it delights in the torment of its customers, but because it must. The economics of the market are forcing this change.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
The Future of your Windows XP PC
Suppose you have one (or several) PCs running Windows XP. Microsoft has announced the end-of-life date for Windows XP (about a year from now). What to do?
You have several options:
Upgrade to Windows 8: This probably requires new hardware, since Windows 8 requires a bit more than Windows XP. If you want to use a touchscreen, you are looking at not upgrading your PC system to Windows 8 but replacing all of the hardware.
Windows 8 uses the new "Modern/Metro" UI which is a significant change from Windows XP. Your users may find the new interface unfamiliar.
Upgrade to Windows 7: Like Windows 8, Windows 7 probably requires new hardware. You are replacing your PC, not upgrading it. (Perhaps you keep the monitor, mouse, and keyboard.)
The UI in Windows 7 is closer to Windows XP, but there are still changes. The user experience is quite close to Windows XP; the system administrator will see the changes.
Switch to Mac: Instead of upgrading to Windows 8 or Windows 7, you can switch to an Apple Macintosh PC running OSX. This requires new versions of your software. Now you are replacing hardware and software, hardly a simple upgrade.
The user interface and administration of OSX is different from Windows, another cost of conversion.
Switch to Linux: Instead of upgrading to a version of Windows, you can switch to Linux. This is one option that lets you keep your current hardware. There are several Linux distros that are designed to run on limited hardware.
The Linux UI is different, but closer to Windows than Mac OSX, and can be tuned to look like Windows. Software may or may not be a challenge. The major browsers (except Internet Explorer) run on Linux. LibreOffice can replace Microsoft Office for most tasks. Commodity software be replaced with open source packages (GIMP for PhotoShop, for example). The WINE package can run some Windows applications, so you may be able to keep your custom (that is, non-commodity) software. (Or perhaps not; some software will run only on Windows.)
Keep Windows XP: This option may be missing from some consultant recommendations, but it is a possible path. There is nothing that will prevent you from running your existing hardware with your existing software. Windows XP has no self-destruct timer, and will continue to run after the "end of life" date.
But staying with Windows XP has costs. They are deferred costs, not immediate costs. They are gradual, not sharply defined. It is the "death by a thousand cuts" approach. You can keep running Windows XP, but small things will break, and then larger things.
Here's what will probably happen:
You get no updates from Microsoft, and you don't have to apply them and reboot Windows. You may think that this is an improvement. It is, in that you don't lose time applying updates. The downside is that your system's vulnerabilities remain unfixed.
As other things in your environment change, you will find that the Windows XP system does not work with the new items. When you add a printer, the Windows XP system will not have a driver for the it. When your software update arrives (perhaps for Adobe Acrobat), the update will politely tell you that the new version is not supported under Windows XP. (If you are lucky, the update will tell you this *before* it modifies your system. Less fortunate folks will learn this only after the new software has been installed and refuses to run.)
New versions of browsers will fail to install. Stuck with old browsers, some web sites will give you warnings and complaints. Some web sites will fail in obvious ways. Others will fail in mysterious and frustrating ways -- perhaps not letting you log in, or complete a transaction.
Problems are not limited to hardware and software -- they can affect people, too.
Job candidates, upon learning that you use Windows XP, may decline to work with you. Some candidates may decline the job immediately. Others may hire on and then complain when you direct them to work with a Windows XP system.
Windows XP may be a problem when you look for system admins. Some may choose to work elsewhere, others may accept the job but demand higher rates. (And some seasoned sysadmins may be happy to work on an old friend.)
It may be that Windows XP (and corresponding applications) will act as a filter for your employees. Folks who want newer technologies will leave (or decline employment), folks who are comfortable with the older tech will stay (or hire on). Eventually many (if not all) of your staff will be familiar with older technologies and unfamiliar with new ones.
At some point, you will want to re-install Windows XP. Here you will encounter difficulties. Microsoft may (or may not) continue to support the activation servers for Windows XP. Without an activation code, Windows XP will not run. Even with the activation servers and codes, if you install on a new PC, Microsoft may reject the activation (thinking that you are attempting to exceed your license count). New hardware presents other problems: If the PC uses UEFI, it may fail to boot the Windows XP installer, which is not signed. If the PC has no CD drive, the Windows XP CD is useless.
You can stay with Windows XP, but the path is limited. Your system becomes fragile, dependent on a limited and shrinking set of technology. At some point, you will be forced to move to something else.
My advice: Move before you are forced to move. Move to a new operating system (and possibly new hardware) on your schedule, not on a schedule set by failing equipment. Migrations take time and require tests to ensure that the new equipment is working. You want to convert from Windows XP to your new environment with minimal risks and minimal disruptions.
You have several options:
Upgrade to Windows 8: This probably requires new hardware, since Windows 8 requires a bit more than Windows XP. If you want to use a touchscreen, you are looking at not upgrading your PC system to Windows 8 but replacing all of the hardware.
Windows 8 uses the new "Modern/Metro" UI which is a significant change from Windows XP. Your users may find the new interface unfamiliar.
Upgrade to Windows 7: Like Windows 8, Windows 7 probably requires new hardware. You are replacing your PC, not upgrading it. (Perhaps you keep the monitor, mouse, and keyboard.)
The UI in Windows 7 is closer to Windows XP, but there are still changes. The user experience is quite close to Windows XP; the system administrator will see the changes.
Switch to Mac: Instead of upgrading to Windows 8 or Windows 7, you can switch to an Apple Macintosh PC running OSX. This requires new versions of your software. Now you are replacing hardware and software, hardly a simple upgrade.
The user interface and administration of OSX is different from Windows, another cost of conversion.
Switch to Linux: Instead of upgrading to a version of Windows, you can switch to Linux. This is one option that lets you keep your current hardware. There are several Linux distros that are designed to run on limited hardware.
The Linux UI is different, but closer to Windows than Mac OSX, and can be tuned to look like Windows. Software may or may not be a challenge. The major browsers (except Internet Explorer) run on Linux. LibreOffice can replace Microsoft Office for most tasks. Commodity software be replaced with open source packages (GIMP for PhotoShop, for example). The WINE package can run some Windows applications, so you may be able to keep your custom (that is, non-commodity) software. (Or perhaps not; some software will run only on Windows.)
Keep Windows XP: This option may be missing from some consultant recommendations, but it is a possible path. There is nothing that will prevent you from running your existing hardware with your existing software. Windows XP has no self-destruct timer, and will continue to run after the "end of life" date.
But staying with Windows XP has costs. They are deferred costs, not immediate costs. They are gradual, not sharply defined. It is the "death by a thousand cuts" approach. You can keep running Windows XP, but small things will break, and then larger things.
Here's what will probably happen:
You get no updates from Microsoft, and you don't have to apply them and reboot Windows. You may think that this is an improvement. It is, in that you don't lose time applying updates. The downside is that your system's vulnerabilities remain unfixed.
As other things in your environment change, you will find that the Windows XP system does not work with the new items. When you add a printer, the Windows XP system will not have a driver for the it. When your software update arrives (perhaps for Adobe Acrobat), the update will politely tell you that the new version is not supported under Windows XP. (If you are lucky, the update will tell you this *before* it modifies your system. Less fortunate folks will learn this only after the new software has been installed and refuses to run.)
New versions of browsers will fail to install. Stuck with old browsers, some web sites will give you warnings and complaints. Some web sites will fail in obvious ways. Others will fail in mysterious and frustrating ways -- perhaps not letting you log in, or complete a transaction.
Problems are not limited to hardware and software -- they can affect people, too.
Job candidates, upon learning that you use Windows XP, may decline to work with you. Some candidates may decline the job immediately. Others may hire on and then complain when you direct them to work with a Windows XP system.
Windows XP may be a problem when you look for system admins. Some may choose to work elsewhere, others may accept the job but demand higher rates. (And some seasoned sysadmins may be happy to work on an old friend.)
It may be that Windows XP (and corresponding applications) will act as a filter for your employees. Folks who want newer technologies will leave (or decline employment), folks who are comfortable with the older tech will stay (or hire on). Eventually many (if not all) of your staff will be familiar with older technologies and unfamiliar with new ones.
At some point, you will want to re-install Windows XP. Here you will encounter difficulties. Microsoft may (or may not) continue to support the activation servers for Windows XP. Without an activation code, Windows XP will not run. Even with the activation servers and codes, if you install on a new PC, Microsoft may reject the activation (thinking that you are attempting to exceed your license count). New hardware presents other problems: If the PC uses UEFI, it may fail to boot the Windows XP installer, which is not signed. If the PC has no CD drive, the Windows XP CD is useless.
You can stay with Windows XP, but the path is limited. Your system becomes fragile, dependent on a limited and shrinking set of technology. At some point, you will be forced to move to something else.
My advice: Move before you are forced to move. Move to a new operating system (and possibly new hardware) on your schedule, not on a schedule set by failing equipment. Migrations take time and require tests to ensure that the new equipment is working. You want to convert from Windows XP to your new environment with minimal risks and minimal disruptions.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Windows fans see the glass half-empty
Microsoft has introduced Windows 8 and its companion Windows RT. The reaction from a number of Windows fans has been less than positive. Consider these articles:
From Infoworld: Forget about Windows 'Blue' -- stay focused on Windows 7
From InformationWeek: Tell Me Again: Why Rush Into Windows 8?
From Infoworld: Forget about Windows 'Blue' -- stay focused on Windows 7
From InformationWeek: Tell Me Again: Why Rush Into Windows 8?
From Byte (a property of InformationWeek): Windows Blue's Got Me Down and Windows Blue/9: No Desktop? No Way!
A few observations:
Some reviews are fair criticisms, others are nostalgic almost-rants: Windows 8 is not a perfect product, nor is Windows RT, nor is the Surface tablet. Some reviews point out their weak areas: battery life, responsive to touch (or not), and consistency of user experience. Other reviews focus on the feature lost: the "Start" button and plug-ins for Internet Explorer (IE).
This opinion is not universal: These magazines are long-time fans of PC computing. In contrast, Dr. Dobbs is neutral about Windows 8 and PC Week has published several positive articles.
This negativity is new (for Windows): Previous releases of Windows have been met with approval from almost all Windows fans.
A reluctance to change: The disapproving users want Windows to remain the way it is. They want the "Start" button. They want to "boot to the desktop".
The Windows user base is not in agreement about the new Windows 8 offering. This is not a bad thing: A collection as large as the Windows user base will most likely contain diversity of opinions.
The negativity in the user base is, I believe, a new phenomenon in the Microsoft community. Previous changes in technology (Windows 95, Windows NT, the .NET platform, the C# programming language) were greeted with cheers. People immediately looked at the new capabilities in these technologies.
(OK, I will admit that Windows Vista was greeted with raspberries. But its problems were many and complaints were legitimate. Vista lacked drivers, demanded hardware, and offered few obvious improvements beyond a pretty desktop.)
The reluctance to change is, perhaps, the most significant of these observations. Microsoft supporters have long been willing to try new things, and often looked at new tech with envy. Microsoft may have built an empire, but the programmers were still in the Rebel Alliance -- scrappy, inventive, and risk-taking.
One can put forward a number of theories for this conservative shift in the fans. Most obvious is that the fans have built small kingdoms of their own, and the new tech threatens their standing in the empire.
A slightly uglier theory poses that Microsoft fans have aged, and the older versions of themselves are "too old for this sort of thing". (Yet Obi-wan Kenobi did a pretty good job, in spite of that claim.)
I have two pet theories:
Theory one: The Microsoft fans were surprised by the speed of the changes. They were not expecting the large change from desktop to mobile/cloud that is Windows RT and Azure. Being the emotional creatures that we humans are, they are reacting with fear and anger.
Theory two: The Microsoft fans are angry with the deprecation (or perceived deprecation) of Microsoft technologies such as Silverlight, IE plug-ins, direct access to hardware, and self-administration of systems. The loss of these (and other) technologies means that much hard-won knowledge is now worthless, and new knowledge must be gained.
I don't know which of these theories is correct. In a sense, it doesn't matter, because I have another theory.
The reason behind the negative thinking is not important. The negative thinking is the important thing. And I theorize that the people with the negative reviews of Windows 8, Windows RT, the Metro interface, and Azure will accomplish very little with those technologies. I theorize that the people asking for the "Start" button will stay with Windows 7 and its technologies.
I further predict that it will be the people who point at Metro and say "hey, this is cool!" will be the folks who deliver interesting apps and services for Windows 8.
Of the two groups, I prefer to work with the "hey this is cool!" people.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Windows 8 is like Y2K, sort of
When an author compares an event to Y2K, the reader is prudent to attend with some degree of skepticism. The Y2K problem was large and affected multiple platforms across all industries. The threat of mobile/cloud computing (if it can even be considered a threat) must be large and wide-spread to stand against Y2K.
I will say up front that the mobile/cloud platform is not a threat. If anything, it is an expansion of technical options for systems, a liberalization of solution sets.
Nor does the mobile/cloud platform have a specific implementation date. With Y2K, we had a very hard deadline for changes. (Deadlines varied across systems, with some earlier than others. For example, bank systems that calculated thirty-year mortgages were corrected in 1970.)
But the change from traditional web architectures to mobile/cloud is significant, and the transition from desktop applications to mobile/cloud is greater. The change from desktop to mobile/cloud requires nothing less than a complete re-build of the application: new UI, new data storage, new system architecture.
And it is these desktop applications (which invariably run under Microsoft Windows) that have an impending crisis. These desktop applications run on "classic" Windows, the Windows of Win32 and MFC and even .NET. These desktop applications have user interfaces that require keyboards and mice. These desktop applications assume constant and fast access to network resources.
One may wonder how these desktop applications, while they may be considered "old-fashioned" and "not of the current tech", can be a problem. After all, as long as we have Windows, we can run them, right?
Well, not quite. As long as we have Windows with Win32 and MFC and .NET (and ODBC and COM and ADO) then we can run them. But there is nothing that says Microsoft will continue to include these packages in Windows. In fact, the new WinRT offering does not include them.
Windows 8, on a desktop PC, runs in two modes: Windows 8 mode and "classic" mode. The former runs apps built for the mobile/loud platform. The latter is much like the old DOS compatibility box, included in Windows to allow us to run old, command-line programs. The "classic" Windows mode is present in Windows 8 as a measure to allow us (the customers and users of Windows) to transition our applications to the new UI.
Microsoft will continue to release new versions of Windows. I am reasonably sure that Microsoft is working on "Windows 9" even with the roll-out of Windows 8 under way. New versions of Windows will come out with new features.
At some point, the "classic Windows compatibility box" will go away. Microsoft may remove it in stages, perhaps making it a plug-in that can be added to the base Windows package. Or perhaps it will be available in only the premium versions of Windows. It is possible that, like the DOS command prompt that yet remains in Windows, the "classic Windows compatibility box" will remain in Windows -- but I doubt it. Microsoft likes the new revenue model of mobile/cloud.
And this is how I see mobile/cloud as a Y2K-like challenge. When the "classic Windows compatibility box" goes away, all of the old-style applications must go away too. You will have to either migrate to the new Windows 8 UI (and the architecture that such a change entails) or you will have to go without.
Web applications are less threatened by mobile/cloud. They run in browsers; the threat to them will be the loss of the browser. That is another topic.
If I were running a company (large or small) I would plan to move to the new world of mobile/cloud. I would start by inventorying all of my current desktop applications and forming plans to move them to mobile/cloud. That process is also another topic.
Comparing mobile/cloud to Y2K is perhaps a bit alarmist. Yet action must be taken, either now or later. My advice: start planning now.
I will say up front that the mobile/cloud platform is not a threat. If anything, it is an expansion of technical options for systems, a liberalization of solution sets.
Nor does the mobile/cloud platform have a specific implementation date. With Y2K, we had a very hard deadline for changes. (Deadlines varied across systems, with some earlier than others. For example, bank systems that calculated thirty-year mortgages were corrected in 1970.)
But the change from traditional web architectures to mobile/cloud is significant, and the transition from desktop applications to mobile/cloud is greater. The change from desktop to mobile/cloud requires nothing less than a complete re-build of the application: new UI, new data storage, new system architecture.
And it is these desktop applications (which invariably run under Microsoft Windows) that have an impending crisis. These desktop applications run on "classic" Windows, the Windows of Win32 and MFC and even .NET. These desktop applications have user interfaces that require keyboards and mice. These desktop applications assume constant and fast access to network resources.
One may wonder how these desktop applications, while they may be considered "old-fashioned" and "not of the current tech", can be a problem. After all, as long as we have Windows, we can run them, right?
Well, not quite. As long as we have Windows with Win32 and MFC and .NET (and ODBC and COM and ADO) then we can run them. But there is nothing that says Microsoft will continue to include these packages in Windows. In fact, the new WinRT offering does not include them.
Windows 8, on a desktop PC, runs in two modes: Windows 8 mode and "classic" mode. The former runs apps built for the mobile/loud platform. The latter is much like the old DOS compatibility box, included in Windows to allow us to run old, command-line programs. The "classic" Windows mode is present in Windows 8 as a measure to allow us (the customers and users of Windows) to transition our applications to the new UI.
Microsoft will continue to release new versions of Windows. I am reasonably sure that Microsoft is working on "Windows 9" even with the roll-out of Windows 8 under way. New versions of Windows will come out with new features.
At some point, the "classic Windows compatibility box" will go away. Microsoft may remove it in stages, perhaps making it a plug-in that can be added to the base Windows package. Or perhaps it will be available in only the premium versions of Windows. It is possible that, like the DOS command prompt that yet remains in Windows, the "classic Windows compatibility box" will remain in Windows -- but I doubt it. Microsoft likes the new revenue model of mobile/cloud.
And this is how I see mobile/cloud as a Y2K-like challenge. When the "classic Windows compatibility box" goes away, all of the old-style applications must go away too. You will have to either migrate to the new Windows 8 UI (and the architecture that such a change entails) or you will have to go without.
Web applications are less threatened by mobile/cloud. They run in browsers; the threat to them will be the loss of the browser. That is another topic.
If I were running a company (large or small) I would plan to move to the new world of mobile/cloud. I would start by inventorying all of my current desktop applications and forming plans to move them to mobile/cloud. That process is also another topic.
Comparing mobile/cloud to Y2K is perhaps a bit alarmist. Yet action must be taken, either now or later. My advice: start planning now.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Forced transitions can work
Technology changes over time. Manufacturers introduce new versions of products, and sometimes introduce radically new products. When a manufacturer introduces a radically new product and discontinues the old product, its customers must make a decision: do the move to the new product or do they stay with the old? This is a forced transition, as it is often impractical to stay with the old product. (New copies or licenses are not available, replacement parts are not available, and support is not available.)
Forced transitions can sometimes succeed:
Forced transitions do not always succeed:
Now, Microsoft is looking to transition its desktop to the new model used by tablets and smartphones. (I call it "tap and swipe", since many of the actions are initiated by taps or swipes of the touchscreen.) Microsoft's vision is present in the Windows 8 "Metro" interface. The computing experience is quite different from classic Windows.
Will they succeed?
Forced transitions can sometimes succeed:
- IBM transitioned customers from their early 704 and 1401 processors to the System/360 processors, and later the System/370 processors.
- DEC transitioned customers from the PDP-11 line to the VAX processor line.
- Microsoft transitioned customers from DOS to Windows, then to Windows NT, and then to .NET.
- Apple transitioned customers from the Macintosh computers with Motorola processors to PowerPC processors, then to Intel processors.
- Apple transitioned the Mac operating system from the original version to OSX.
Forced transitions do not always succeed:
- IBM failed to convince customers to move from the IBM PC to the IBM PS/2.
- DEC failed to convince customers to move from the VAX to the Alpha processor.
Now, Microsoft is looking to transition its desktop to the new model used by tablets and smartphones. (I call it "tap and swipe", since many of the actions are initiated by taps or swipes of the touchscreen.) Microsoft's vision is present in the Windows 8 "Metro" interface. The computing experience is quite different from classic Windows.
Will they succeed?
Microsoft has a lot going for it. They are big and have a commanding presence in the software market. Switching from Windows-based products to alternatives on other platforms is expensive, involving the acquisition of the software, conversion of data, and training of users. Specialized software may be unavailable on platforms other than Windows.
Microsoft also has a lot against its success at the transition. Users are familiar with the current Windows interface and the current tools. The Metro UI brings a very different experience to the desktop and to computing (well, it moves Windows into the realm of iPhones and Android tablets). There will be a lot of resistance to change.
I think Microsoft will succeed, because users have no where else to go. When IBM introduced the PS/2, users had the options of buying IBM PC clones -- and they exercised those options. When DEC introduced the Alpha processor, users had the options of moving to workstations from other vendors -- and they did.
The transition to Windows 8 and Metro forces people to adopt the new interface, but they have no option to replace Windows 7. Changing to Mac OSX will lead to a similar GUI change (I expect future versions of OSX to look more and more like iOS). Changing to Linux creates significant challenges for education and software replacements.
I *do* expect that some shops will move away from Windows. If they have no software that is specific to Windows, if their software is readily available on other platforms, they could move to those other platforms. Some will move to Linux and the LibreOffice suite of tools. Others will move to web-based and cloud-based services like Google Docs and Zoho documents. But I expect these to be a small number of customers. The majority of customers will shift, perhaps unwillingly, to Windows 8.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Windows 8 means a faster treadmill
The release of Windows 8 marks a change in Microsoft's approach to backwards compatibility. Microsoft has shifted its position from "compatible at just about everything" to "things change a lot and your old things may not work".
Windows 8 and its Metro interface re-define the programming of applications. On x86 processors, legacy applications can run in "Windows 7 mode". On ARM processors, legacy applications... cannot run. And while Windows 8 offers Windows 7 mode, Microsoft has made no promise of such a feature in future releases.
With the shift to WinRT and Metro, Microsoft has started a countdown clock for the lives of all Windows applications in existence.
In the past, Microsoft maintained compatibility for just about every application. Even vintage DOS applications would run under Windows XP (and probably still run under Windows 7). That compatibility came at no small expense, not only in development and testing costs, but at opportunity costs. (New development was constrained by the design decisions of previous releases.)
Users, developers, and support teams are on a treadmill, with new technologies and releases arriving faster than before. The good old days of decade-long technology planning have been replaced with a range of two or three years.
People can get upset about the faster pace of the treadmill, but they have nowhere to go.
Apple has "revved" its platform a number of times, changing the processor, the operating system, the user interface, and the device form factor. The folks working on Linux are working on similar changes.
If Microsoft believes that it can be more profitable in a new market, or if it believes that the current market is not profitable, then I believe that they will move to the new market. It's customer's problems with lack of backward compatibility are not Microsoft's problem.
Interestingly, corporations long ago lobbied for shorter depreciation schedules for computing equipment. They successfully got the depreciation for equipment reduced to ... three years. Now Apple and Microsoft seem to be agreeing, indicating that equipment really is obsolete after three years. (Except that they include software in the definition of "equipment".)
I'm not sure that this faster pace is a good thing. I'm also not sure that I like it. But I do know this: it's happening. The question is not how to stop it, or how to avoid it, but how to cope with it. How do we live in a world when technology changes (dramatically) every three or maybe two years?
Windows 8 and its Metro interface re-define the programming of applications. On x86 processors, legacy applications can run in "Windows 7 mode". On ARM processors, legacy applications... cannot run. And while Windows 8 offers Windows 7 mode, Microsoft has made no promise of such a feature in future releases.
With the shift to WinRT and Metro, Microsoft has started a countdown clock for the lives of all Windows applications in existence.
In the past, Microsoft maintained compatibility for just about every application. Even vintage DOS applications would run under Windows XP (and probably still run under Windows 7). That compatibility came at no small expense, not only in development and testing costs, but at opportunity costs. (New development was constrained by the design decisions of previous releases.)
Users, developers, and support teams are on a treadmill, with new technologies and releases arriving faster than before. The good old days of decade-long technology planning have been replaced with a range of two or three years.
People can get upset about the faster pace of the treadmill, but they have nowhere to go.
Apple has "revved" its platform a number of times, changing the processor, the operating system, the user interface, and the device form factor. The folks working on Linux are working on similar changes.
If Microsoft believes that it can be more profitable in a new market, or if it believes that the current market is not profitable, then I believe that they will move to the new market. It's customer's problems with lack of backward compatibility are not Microsoft's problem.
Interestingly, corporations long ago lobbied for shorter depreciation schedules for computing equipment. They successfully got the depreciation for equipment reduced to ... three years. Now Apple and Microsoft seem to be agreeing, indicating that equipment really is obsolete after three years. (Except that they include software in the definition of "equipment".)
I'm not sure that this faster pace is a good thing. I'm also not sure that I like it. But I do know this: it's happening. The question is not how to stop it, or how to avoid it, but how to cope with it. How do we live in a world when technology changes (dramatically) every three or maybe two years?
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Don't like Windows 8? Wait for version 3
Lots of folks are unhappy with Windows 8. The complaints are easy to find: just search the web for Windows 8 and skip any pages on microsoft.com.
My take is that Windows 8, and Metro in particular, are the first version of a new product. Microsoft has a history of releasing products that are not quite right, and releasing follow-up versions that improve the product. Eventually, Microsoft releases a product that is popular. I call this the "version 3 effect", after the experience with Windows. Microsoft released Windows several times before it became popular in version 3.0, and really popular with version 3.1.
Resistance to early versions of Windows was due in part to hardware (the processors and PCs of the day were not quite ready for multitasking) and due in part to our unfamiliarity with the new creature known as Windows. (The jump from PC-DOS to Windows was a large one, and it took most people some time to adjust our mental model of PCs.)
I recall a similar resistance to .NET, with people unsure of the new thing and longing for the familiarity of the old MFC/Win32 world. (Some of the confusion was caused by Microsoft's marketing, with tagged almost every product with the ".NET" label.) Yet today we have no confusion of .NET and few developers want to return to Win32 or MFC.
The change from Windows 7 to Windows 8 is a large one. I view it as large as the MFC- to-.NET change and the DOS-to-Windows change. Microsoft has redefined the Windows API and the terms of GUI design. Instead of Win32 or even the classic .NET API, Microsoft is providing WinRT. Instead of the traditional "windows and controls" design, Microsoft is providing Metro.
These changes are large, and more importantly, they invalidate a lot of hard-won knowledge of the Microsoft environment. Developers must learn the new APIs, and much of their current knowledge is about to become useless. This, I think, is driving the anger in the development community. I expect similar anger in related communities: tech support, sales, Windows-as-component (think of the point-of-sale and kiosk systems that include Windows), and anyone who uses Windows. Microsoft has changed the rules, and people have to learn the new set.
I think that Microsoft is doing the right thing. The wrong thing would be to keep Windows as Windows, to not move towards the model of tablet computing. That path would allow Apple, Google, and Linux to surpass Windows and make Microsoft irrelevant.
Metro isn't classic Windows. It also isn't perfect, or even demonstrably better (yet). I expect Microsoft to learn from their experience and improve their product, as they have in the past. If Windows 8 is "version 1", then look for one or two service packs to improve the product -- those will be "version 2". The "version 3" product, the one that gets it right, will be Windows 9.
My take is that Windows 8, and Metro in particular, are the first version of a new product. Microsoft has a history of releasing products that are not quite right, and releasing follow-up versions that improve the product. Eventually, Microsoft releases a product that is popular. I call this the "version 3 effect", after the experience with Windows. Microsoft released Windows several times before it became popular in version 3.0, and really popular with version 3.1.
Resistance to early versions of Windows was due in part to hardware (the processors and PCs of the day were not quite ready for multitasking) and due in part to our unfamiliarity with the new creature known as Windows. (The jump from PC-DOS to Windows was a large one, and it took most people some time to adjust our mental model of PCs.)
I recall a similar resistance to .NET, with people unsure of the new thing and longing for the familiarity of the old MFC/Win32 world. (Some of the confusion was caused by Microsoft's marketing, with tagged almost every product with the ".NET" label.) Yet today we have no confusion of .NET and few developers want to return to Win32 or MFC.
The change from Windows 7 to Windows 8 is a large one. I view it as large as the MFC- to-.NET change and the DOS-to-Windows change. Microsoft has redefined the Windows API and the terms of GUI design. Instead of Win32 or even the classic .NET API, Microsoft is providing WinRT. Instead of the traditional "windows and controls" design, Microsoft is providing Metro.
These changes are large, and more importantly, they invalidate a lot of hard-won knowledge of the Microsoft environment. Developers must learn the new APIs, and much of their current knowledge is about to become useless. This, I think, is driving the anger in the development community. I expect similar anger in related communities: tech support, sales, Windows-as-component (think of the point-of-sale and kiosk systems that include Windows), and anyone who uses Windows. Microsoft has changed the rules, and people have to learn the new set.
I think that Microsoft is doing the right thing. The wrong thing would be to keep Windows as Windows, to not move towards the model of tablet computing. That path would allow Apple, Google, and Linux to surpass Windows and make Microsoft irrelevant.
Metro isn't classic Windows. It also isn't perfect, or even demonstrably better (yet). I expect Microsoft to learn from their experience and improve their product, as they have in the past. If Windows 8 is "version 1", then look for one or two service packs to improve the product -- those will be "version 2". The "version 3" product, the one that gets it right, will be Windows 9.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Redmond may be the new Detroit
Microsoft is haunted by its reputation.
In the 1960s and 1970s, Detroit earned a reputation for a certain level of quality in its products. Cars were designed, built, and sold -- lots of cars, since U.S. automakers had no significant competition -- with a level of quality that was ... less than it could have been. Cars were designed with "planned obsolescence", built to last for a few years or a few thousand miles. Exhaust systems would rust, vinyl roofs would shred, and gas mileage was low. But with no competition, Detroit had a quasi-monopoly on the market. (There was some competition from automakers in Germany, France, and Japan, but it was small.)
In the late 1970s, the price of oil (and therefore gasoline) rose, and people became unhappy with their cars. Japanese automakers designed and built cars that were efficient. Those cars were also reliable.
Japan quickly acquired the reputation of building reliable, efficient cars. Detroit acquired the reputation for "gas guzzlers" and shoddy workmanship.
Detroit learned a hard lesson, changed its ways, and built better cars. They were more efficient, safer, and more reliable. Detroit improved the quality of its product and now produces cars that are of equal quality to Japanese cars.
Yet the reputation lingers.
Within companies, the sales and marketing folks are very conscious of "the brand" and do things to maintain the companies "image". They run advertising campaigns and conduct customer surveys. Reputation is the customer's version of brand management. It's not managed, it simply happens. Whatever customers think of your brand becomes your reputation. And Detroit earned the reputation for unreliable and inefficient products.
Which brings us to Microsoft.
Microsoft is the Detroit of the software world. It has a long reputation of building buggy, bloated applications. And until recently, it was the only game in town -- if you were using computers, you were using Windows. (A few rebels used Apple or Linux, but they were on the fringe, much like the folks who drove foreign cars in the 1960s.)
Just as the Japanese automakers moved in to the American market, Apple moved in to the PC market. Apple now has a significant share of PC sales and software sales. (Linux remains fringe, except in the server arena.)
Detroit changed its ways, and Microsoft is making changes to Windows. The Windows 8 line, with its "Metro" GUI and the Windows App Store, is a big departure from the old Windows. The old Windows provided a platform (Windows), office software (Word, Excel, Exchange, Outlook), development tools (Visual Studio) but left the market open to all others. Anyone could write and sell applications for Windows (and many people did). Windows PCs were open in the sense that the owner (or administrator) could install applications from any source - Microsoft, third-party providers, or even in-house developers.
The brave new world of Windows 8 changes that. Apps (at least, apps for the "Metro" side of Windows 8) must come through the Windows App store, much like iPad apps must come through iTunes. This change will allow Microsoft better control over the quality of apps, and allow it to filter out poorly-written apps and malware. It improves the quality of apps in the Windows environment.
With these changes, Microsoft may be able to achieve a level of quality that equals (or perhaps even surpasses) that of iPad apps.
Which brings us to reputations.
Will improved quality be enough for Microsoft? Or has the market assigned a reputation to Microsoft? The reputation of buggy software may limit Microsoft's growth.
For Microsoft to succeed in the market, they must provide software of a higher quality than Apple, and they must build a reputation for reliable software.
I believe that they can do it. But I believe that it will take a lot of control over the products that are released in the Windows world. A level of control that is on par with Steve Jobs' obsession with quality. And I am not sure that the existing market of Windows application providers is ready for that.
In the 1960s and 1970s, Detroit earned a reputation for a certain level of quality in its products. Cars were designed, built, and sold -- lots of cars, since U.S. automakers had no significant competition -- with a level of quality that was ... less than it could have been. Cars were designed with "planned obsolescence", built to last for a few years or a few thousand miles. Exhaust systems would rust, vinyl roofs would shred, and gas mileage was low. But with no competition, Detroit had a quasi-monopoly on the market. (There was some competition from automakers in Germany, France, and Japan, but it was small.)
In the late 1970s, the price of oil (and therefore gasoline) rose, and people became unhappy with their cars. Japanese automakers designed and built cars that were efficient. Those cars were also reliable.
Japan quickly acquired the reputation of building reliable, efficient cars. Detroit acquired the reputation for "gas guzzlers" and shoddy workmanship.
Detroit learned a hard lesson, changed its ways, and built better cars. They were more efficient, safer, and more reliable. Detroit improved the quality of its product and now produces cars that are of equal quality to Japanese cars.
Yet the reputation lingers.
Within companies, the sales and marketing folks are very conscious of "the brand" and do things to maintain the companies "image". They run advertising campaigns and conduct customer surveys. Reputation is the customer's version of brand management. It's not managed, it simply happens. Whatever customers think of your brand becomes your reputation. And Detroit earned the reputation for unreliable and inefficient products.
Which brings us to Microsoft.
Microsoft is the Detroit of the software world. It has a long reputation of building buggy, bloated applications. And until recently, it was the only game in town -- if you were using computers, you were using Windows. (A few rebels used Apple or Linux, but they were on the fringe, much like the folks who drove foreign cars in the 1960s.)
Just as the Japanese automakers moved in to the American market, Apple moved in to the PC market. Apple now has a significant share of PC sales and software sales. (Linux remains fringe, except in the server arena.)
Detroit changed its ways, and Microsoft is making changes to Windows. The Windows 8 line, with its "Metro" GUI and the Windows App Store, is a big departure from the old Windows. The old Windows provided a platform (Windows), office software (Word, Excel, Exchange, Outlook), development tools (Visual Studio) but left the market open to all others. Anyone could write and sell applications for Windows (and many people did). Windows PCs were open in the sense that the owner (or administrator) could install applications from any source - Microsoft, third-party providers, or even in-house developers.
The brave new world of Windows 8 changes that. Apps (at least, apps for the "Metro" side of Windows 8) must come through the Windows App store, much like iPad apps must come through iTunes. This change will allow Microsoft better control over the quality of apps, and allow it to filter out poorly-written apps and malware. It improves the quality of apps in the Windows environment.
With these changes, Microsoft may be able to achieve a level of quality that equals (or perhaps even surpasses) that of iPad apps.
Which brings us to reputations.
Will improved quality be enough for Microsoft? Or has the market assigned a reputation to Microsoft? The reputation of buggy software may limit Microsoft's growth.
For Microsoft to succeed in the market, they must provide software of a higher quality than Apple, and they must build a reputation for reliable software.
I believe that they can do it. But I believe that it will take a lot of control over the products that are released in the Windows world. A level of control that is on par with Steve Jobs' obsession with quality. And I am not sure that the existing market of Windows application providers is ready for that.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
What Microsoft's past can tell us about Windows 8
Microsoft Windows 8 changes a lot of assumptions about Windows. It especially affects developers. The familiar Windows API has been deprecated, and Microsoft now offers WinRT (the "Windows Runtime").
What will it be like? What will it offer?
I have a guess.
This is a guess. As such, I could be right or wrong. I have seen none of Microsoft's announcements or documentation for Windows 8, so I might be wrong at this very moment.
Microsoft is good at building better versions of competitors' products.
Let's look at Microsoft products and see how they compare to the competition.
MS-DOS was a bigger, better CP/M.
Windows was a better (although perhaps not bigger) version of IBM's OS/2 Presentation Manager.
Windows 3.1 included a better version of Novell's Netware.
Word was a bigger version of Wordstar and Wordperfect.
Excel was a bigger, better version of Lotus 1-2-3.
Visual Studio was a bigger, better version of Borland's TurboPascal IDE.
C# was a better version of Java.
Microsoft is not so much an innovator as it is an "improver", one who refines an idea.
What will it be like? What will it offer?
I have a guess.
This is a guess. As such, I could be right or wrong. I have seen none of Microsoft's announcements or documentation for Windows 8, so I might be wrong at this very moment.
Microsoft is good at building better versions of competitors' products.
Let's look at Microsoft products and see how they compare to the competition.
MS-DOS was a bigger, better CP/M.
Windows was a better (although perhaps not bigger) version of IBM's OS/2 Presentation Manager.
Windows 3.1 included a better version of Novell's Netware.
Word was a bigger version of Wordstar and Wordperfect.
Excel was a bigger, better version of Lotus 1-2-3.
Visual Studio was a bigger, better version of Borland's TurboPascal IDE.
C# was a better version of Java.
Microsoft is not so much an innovator as it is an "improver", one who refines an idea.
It might just be that Windows 8 will be not an Innovative New Thing, but instead a Bigger Better Version of Some Existing Thing -- and not a bigger, better version of Windows 7, but a bigger, better version of someone else's operating system.
That operating system may just be Unix, or Linux, or NetBSD.
Microsoft can't simply take the code to Linux and "improve" it into WinRT; doing so would violate the Linux license.
But Microsoft has an agreement with Novell (yes, the same Novell that saw it's Netware product killed by Windows 3.1), and Novell has the copyright to Unix. That may give Microsoft a way to use Unix code.
It just may be that Microsoft's WinRT will be very Unix-like, with a kernel and a separate graphics layer, modules and drivers, and an efficient set of system calls. WinRT may be nothing more than a bigger, better version of Unix.
And that may be a good thing.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Windows 8 shows Microsoft's big problem
We have seen the future, and for Windows, the future looks a lot like Windows Phone 7. Microsoft has let folks see glimpses of the not-yet-released version of Windows. Some have raved and others have yawned.
A long time ago, Windows was created with three goals in mind: provide a graphical interface for PCs, counter the threat from from the new Macintosh computer, and hide the command line interface from users.
Windows 8 continues those objectives. It provides a nice-looking interface, it counters the recent advances made by Apple, and once again it hides complexity from the user.
But Windows 8 is not Microsoft using the same strategy as Apple. For the iPods and iPhones, Apple created a new operating system, a new user interface, and a new way of computing. It made a clean break from the Mac OSX line. Microsoft, in contrast, is betting on backwards-compatibility, and Windows 8, with its shiny interface, can run older Windows programs.
Backwards compatibility is a blessing and a curse for Microsoft. It allows their customers to move gradually to the new operating system, keeping their existing applications. Yet it means that Microsoft must support a lot of complicated (and sometimes just plain wrong) APIs. (For example, the Windows Registry will be present in Windows 8, despite almost universal hatred of the thing. But too many programs depend on it, and Microsoft is stuck with it.)
Microsoft has trained customers to expect backwards compatibility.
Apple has trained its customers to expect new platforms. The history of Apple products in littered with abandoned platforms: Apple II DOS, the original Mac OS, the later Mac OS version 6 through 9, the Motorola processors, and the Power PC chips. When Apple introduced a new iOS operating system for the iPod and iPhone, no one blinked.
Microsoft could never get away with anything like that. The release of Windows Vista with its limited support for devices brought howls.
Microsoft's fate, like it or not, is tied to Windows. Which means that Microsoft must drag Windows to any market that it chooses to enter. The XBOX runs Windows, the Zune runs (OK, ran) Windows, the Media Center runs Windows... everything Microsoft does runs Windows.
Or to put it another way, Microsoft does everything with Windows. And the consequences of that are... Windows must be extended, stretched, folded, spindled, and mutilated into any new product.
Microsoft's growth is limited by its ability to expand Windows. And that is Microsoft's big problem.
A long time ago, Windows was created with three goals in mind: provide a graphical interface for PCs, counter the threat from from the new Macintosh computer, and hide the command line interface from users.
Windows 8 continues those objectives. It provides a nice-looking interface, it counters the recent advances made by Apple, and once again it hides complexity from the user.
But Windows 8 is not Microsoft using the same strategy as Apple. For the iPods and iPhones, Apple created a new operating system, a new user interface, and a new way of computing. It made a clean break from the Mac OSX line. Microsoft, in contrast, is betting on backwards-compatibility, and Windows 8, with its shiny interface, can run older Windows programs.
Backwards compatibility is a blessing and a curse for Microsoft. It allows their customers to move gradually to the new operating system, keeping their existing applications. Yet it means that Microsoft must support a lot of complicated (and sometimes just plain wrong) APIs. (For example, the Windows Registry will be present in Windows 8, despite almost universal hatred of the thing. But too many programs depend on it, and Microsoft is stuck with it.)
Microsoft has trained customers to expect backwards compatibility.
Apple has trained its customers to expect new platforms. The history of Apple products in littered with abandoned platforms: Apple II DOS, the original Mac OS, the later Mac OS version 6 through 9, the Motorola processors, and the Power PC chips. When Apple introduced a new iOS operating system for the iPod and iPhone, no one blinked.
Microsoft could never get away with anything like that. The release of Windows Vista with its limited support for devices brought howls.
Microsoft's fate, like it or not, is tied to Windows. Which means that Microsoft must drag Windows to any market that it chooses to enter. The XBOX runs Windows, the Zune runs (OK, ran) Windows, the Media Center runs Windows... everything Microsoft does runs Windows.
Or to put it another way, Microsoft does everything with Windows. And the consequences of that are... Windows must be extended, stretched, folded, spindled, and mutilated into any new product.
Microsoft's growth is limited by its ability to expand Windows. And that is Microsoft's big problem.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
The Brave New World of Windows 8
Recent rumblings have mentioned a new version of Windows, currently known as "Windows 8". If it seems that Microsoft is releasing new versions of Windows quickly, perhaps it is because ... Microsoft is releasing new versions of Windows quickly. The sedate pace of Windows 2000 and Windows XP has been changed to a faster tempo with Windows Vista and Windows 7.
This may or may not be a good thing for Microsoft.
Certainly the revenue stream is a good thing. And a new version of Windows allows for a "reset" of the hardware requirements, allowing Microsoft to build on a set of more powerful computers. With more computing power, Microsoft ought to be able to offer a better computing experience.
The competing OSX and Linux have had quick releases: OSX "Leopard", "Snow Leopard", and now "Lion"; Ubuntu's six-month pulse of releases 9.04, 9.10, 10.04, and 10.10. Microsoft may feel some need to "keep up with the Joneses".
This may or may not be a good thing for Microsoft customers.
A new version of Windows places a load on customers. Upgrading existing systems, or replacing hardware, are tasks that are time consuming (and dollar consuming). The change from the Windows XP interface to Windows Vista's "Aero" was a big jump and probably cost more in terms of retraining time than in license upgrade dollars.
And the big question that customers are still asking is "what is the benefit"? Most customers (especially corporate customers) were happy with the Windows XP GUI. It was a nice, known interface, perhaps with some arcane bits but everything had been mapped. Support groups knew how to make it work.
To succeed with Windows 8, Microsoft needs to demonstrate the value in a new version. Not just the new features (such as Vista's pretty-but-gratuitous GUI) but benefits. How does a new Windows help business?
I suspect that a big feature in Windows 8 will be the Microsoft app store. (Or "market", or whatever they call it.) I suspect that Microsoft will shift software distribution to their app store, and move away from the model of CD distribution.
Such a move will have large effects on the Windows "ecosystem". Companies that sell Windows software will have to move to the new app store model. This move won't be easy, and it won't be cheap. Yet it shouldn't be a surprise: you can see the signs with the tools available for Windows Phone 7.
Forward-looking companies will prepare for this new world in advance.
This may or may not be a good thing for Microsoft.
Certainly the revenue stream is a good thing. And a new version of Windows allows for a "reset" of the hardware requirements, allowing Microsoft to build on a set of more powerful computers. With more computing power, Microsoft ought to be able to offer a better computing experience.
The competing OSX and Linux have had quick releases: OSX "Leopard", "Snow Leopard", and now "Lion"; Ubuntu's six-month pulse of releases 9.04, 9.10, 10.04, and 10.10. Microsoft may feel some need to "keep up with the Joneses".
This may or may not be a good thing for Microsoft customers.
A new version of Windows places a load on customers. Upgrading existing systems, or replacing hardware, are tasks that are time consuming (and dollar consuming). The change from the Windows XP interface to Windows Vista's "Aero" was a big jump and probably cost more in terms of retraining time than in license upgrade dollars.
And the big question that customers are still asking is "what is the benefit"? Most customers (especially corporate customers) were happy with the Windows XP GUI. It was a nice, known interface, perhaps with some arcane bits but everything had been mapped. Support groups knew how to make it work.
To succeed with Windows 8, Microsoft needs to demonstrate the value in a new version. Not just the new features (such as Vista's pretty-but-gratuitous GUI) but benefits. How does a new Windows help business?
I suspect that a big feature in Windows 8 will be the Microsoft app store. (Or "market", or whatever they call it.) I suspect that Microsoft will shift software distribution to their app store, and move away from the model of CD distribution.
Such a move will have large effects on the Windows "ecosystem". Companies that sell Windows software will have to move to the new app store model. This move won't be easy, and it won't be cheap. Yet it shouldn't be a surprise: you can see the signs with the tools available for Windows Phone 7.
Forward-looking companies will prepare for this new world in advance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)