Vista: Microsoft's Last 'Big Bang' Operating System?

Information Week ^ | December 1, 2006 | Aaron Ricadela

[Zakeet]

As he took the stage to usher Windows Vista to market, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer last week tried to put the software's laborious birth behind him. The company's 71,000 employees -- and the entire PC industry, for that matter -- could be excused for breathing a sigh of relief, too.

"It's an exciting thing to finally be here, and that's probably all I'll say about the past," Ballmer said at the unveiling from Nasdaq's cylindrical high-tech building in New York's Times Square. Office 2007 and Exchange Server 2007 also were introduced, and 30 more products will follow over the next year, all part of the same technology wave. "This is the biggest launch we've ever done," Ballmer said. Microsoft will spend $450 million marketing it all.

Yet for all the design missteps, overly ambitious plans, and personnel changes that led to a five-year lag between versions of Windows, questions about the future of Microsoft's software are top of mind for customers and partners. Ballmer swears to never let as much time elapse between Windows versions; the question now is how the company can keep churning out innovative products on a compressed timetable.

"Vista is the last of the Big Bang operating system releases from Microsoft," Credit Suisse research analyst Jason Maynard wrote in a report last month.

[ReignOfError]

Now their boxes are nothing but proprietized non-standard PCs. Some of these posters thinking that Apple will capture a large segment of disgruntled consumer and corporate MS Windows users by offering an emancipated OSX OS for Intel PCs ought to stop dreaming. The moment they do that, that's the last Mac they sell.

Not just that, but it would mean abandoning the whole concept behind the Macintosh -- that software and hardware are designed at the same time to work with each other. Windows is stuck with the task of trying to support every crap video or sound card any yahoo decides to throw over the wall. Meanwhile Apple, because it controls both ends of the business, can decide one day that it's going to do away with floppy drives or dump serial ports and go all-USB, something it took Windows vendors several more years to do (and Windows itself still can't do, because iti's hamstrung by "legacy hardware").

I won't say Apple wouldn't do something that unwise given their history of rotten business decisions (Remember the Mac clones?)

Mac clones were a fine idea in the abstract, and would have worked out well if they'd hunted out niches Apple didn't -- smaller laptops, cheaper machines for education ... if a clone maker had come up with something like the Mini or the iMac, we might still have licensed clones. But the cloners targeted the exact same niches Apple was targeting, and rather than expanding the reach of the brand, they just cannibalized Apple's own sales.

but I think that if it ever does happen it will generate a firestorm of 'Wow-WEE!' columns in the trade journals and then promptly fall flat on it's ass just like Sun's Solaris X86 release did.

I don't think Apple will ever release a version of Mac OS for generic Intel boxes -- the support costs would be mammoth. on the other hand, it's inevitable that more hacks will show up to run Mac OS on non-Mac boxes, and Apple won't resist much. They'll let the open source enthusiasts take the support duties, and they'll take the sales. And then remind folks that if they had a real Mac, they'd have a lot less hassle.

[ReignOfError]

It has never been the hardware that sells the Mac, nor the reason for using one no matter what anyone has said.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "never." I've seen a few companies that have iMacs on the reception desk, for simple enough tasks that just about any computer would do. They bought the image.

Apple has always been in a bit of a quandry. Its soul is that of a software company, but it's funded by hardware sales. The OS is locked to its own boxes as a matter of philosophy, but also because without that cash cow, it would just be another "alternative OS," like BeOS or NeXT or OS/2, clearly with a better mousetrap, but with all the challenges of Microsoft and without the base (though IBM certainly put enough money into OS/2).

(I used to own a 9500...until you have installed RAM in that box, you don't know what a challenging RAM installation is)

Heh. I've added RAM to a Mac Plus, and I've replaced hard drives in a Powerbook Duo and an iBook. Tower cases don't intimidate me.

The lousy thing about that whole mess was, they had to yank the clone licensure to remain profitable. A bad decision to allow clones was followed by a good (and tough) decision to pull that licensure.

Apple was hoping that the cloners would forge into new market segments -- at the time, Apple's own laptop options were pretty lame, and a cloner who offered better portables would have done a lot to expand the brand and would have been a good deal for Apple. Instead, all they got were companies targeting the exact same market niches where Apple was already strong, so Apple lost hardware sales without gaining many copies of the OS sold.

The clone debacle was, I think, more of a symptom than a problem in itself. For much of the '90s, Apple didn't really have a vision of what it wanted to make and what it wanted to be. It tried putting out a dizzying array of boring beige boxes to try to compete with every Windows PC model, with the result that even dedicated fans didn't know which way way up (Centris? Performa? Please. And I still don't know what the PowerMac 4400 was all about).

At the same time, the OS, the crown jewels of the Macintosh, languished. System 7 was a big improvement ... in 1991. Everything from 7 to 8 to 9 was really nothing more than a bug fix. The Mac was treading water while Windows was catching up. The Taligent/Pink project with IBM was an expensive dead-end. If Macs weren't clinging to the DTP/prepress and the emerging video niche markets, Apple might have gone the way of the Amiga in the mid-'to-late-90s.

But then Apple did the crazy thing, and brought back Steve Jobs. What the company lacked most in the '90s was a concise vision and a clear direction, and Steve brings those. The iMac was an update of the original Mac concept -- everything in one box, simple and pretty, less complicated to use than a toaster oven. The iPod was a masterful example of finding a market that was about to explode and building the best tool available for the task.

You may note that Apple doesn't make cell phones or PDAs -- and certainly not because I haven't written enough letters asking them to. They've also gotten out of the businesses of making their own printers and digital still cameras and only offer a few monitor options.

In the '90s, they were trying to fight a war on every front, and losing most of them. Now, they don't enter a market until and unless they're convinced they have a winner -- as they did with the iPod, and then with iTunes. For all the other stuff, they have the more sensible policy of pointing to Canon or HP or Palm, and then making sure the Mac connects to it well.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... Having worked in publishing, I can attribute it mainly to three things. One is that Quark delayed a lot in coming out with OS X native version of its products. Another is that Windows became capable of decent DTP at a time when Macs were far more expensive. Another is the period in which you could get a faster PC than the fastest Mac for less than the Mac."

One more thing to add: Many wizards from Apple's golden age that made magic there either left to start their own companies, retired with great bags of loot, or were acquired by Apple's competitors.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... Not just that, but it would mean abandoning the whole concept behind the Macintosh -- that software and hardware are designed at the same time to work with each other. Windows is stuck with the task of trying to support every crap video or sound card any yahoo decides to throw over the wall.

Yes, as long as they're still selling their own hardware it would never happen. Apple *could* have a certification program in-house that would enforce compatibility rules for software/hardware like MS does. Random hardware will run on Windows without much of a problem as long as it conforms to the 'Generic' PC standard at the foundation level. Even the sketchiest Asian hardware manufacturer is pretty good at producing a device that will run without trouble because they know what the rules are.

At the moment, Apple is committed to keeping their hardware business intact. To do so, they've finally adopted the PC architecture after all of these years in order to lower consumer costs.

If they were only a software company, Apple would have to compete heads-up against MS on OS systems alone, and they'd lose before the race even got started. They've already tried something like this years ago under the previous idiot that ran the joint before Steve's return. If there's a real burden here, it's that Apple still has to produce their own hardware AND software. What does Microsoft have for hardware? A selection of mice and keyboards? On the hardware side, Dell only makes boxes.

Things will stay the way they are at Apple for some time. They're making revenue on their iPods and other consumer devices like the proposed do-it-all PDA/phone they're whispering about. That, and the business of selling MP3s.

If they didn't have that, they'd be in the position of selling their Cinema Displays for twice the cost of a comparable ViewSonic LCD that has the exact same specs (and probably has the same LCD matrix that Apple uses because they both came from the same Asian LCD manufacturer) with the exception that Apple's costs double because it has a sexy brushed aluminum case.

[ReignOfError]

"In many cases, the Mac is the cheaper initial purchase"

Since when?

About the last five years. On a price/performance basis, Macs cost about the same as comparable Windows PCs.

Comparable is the tricky part. Compare a Mac to, say, a Sony, and the Mac doesn't look expensive at all. The thing is, the Windows market has the super-cheap, bottom-rung Dells, Wal-Mart Lindows boxes, eMachines, barebones kits and build-your-own options, and Mac doesn't have equivalents to those.

In laptops, the price difference was never that great, and now it's pretty much vanished. All laptops have fiddly specialized and expensive parts, because that's what it takes to fit so much into a small space. Building your own laptop isn't really an option unless you're MacGuyver.

But again, what the Mac lacks is a low-end comparable to what Windows has. Plenty of Windows vendors are selling cheap laptops that are brand new, but based on three-year-old technology. For the Mac equivalent to that, you have to go used or refurbed.

[ReignOfError]

I'm granting that more software is available for the PC. My point is that if there's not an app you need that only runs on Windows..

I'd argue that talking about apps at all is missing the point. Windows users love to crow that they can run more applications. Big whoop. I have more than I can handle already.

The issue isn't what apps you want to run, but what you want to do with them. Who gives a frog's feathery fat ass that Windows users can choose from five hundred text editing programs, and Mac users only have a hundred to choose from? When I sit down to write, I only need one. One good one. If there are only 99 crappy ones I'm not using, rather than 499 crappy ones I'm not using, I don't see how that diminishes my life.

[ReignOfError]

Yes, as long as they're still selling their own hardware it would never happen. Apple *could* have a certification program in-house that would enforce compatibility rules for software/hardware like MS does. Random hardware will run on Windows without much of a problem as long as it conforms to the 'Generic' PC standard at the foundation level. Even the sketchiest Asian hardware manufacturer is pretty good at producing a device that will run without trouble because they know what the rules are.

There's a lot of wiggle room in "without much of a problem." Basically, Apple has its standards and protocols, same as Microsoft, but maintains a narrower range, which makes things a lot easier for the user. It would be a lot more difficult to maintain that if they weren't building their own boxes (a choice Microsoft never had to make, because they never built boxes in the first place.

At the moment, Apple is committed to keeping their hardware business intact. To do so, they've finally adopted the PC architecture after all of these years in order to lower consumer costs.

They've adopted "the PC architecture" piecemeal over the last ten years, at least. They dropped their own video standard in favor of VGA, then DVI (with that little ADC detour, and I hate that that didn't work out). They dropped ADB for USB. They dropped NuBus and adopted PCI and AGP slots. They dropped SCSI and went to IDE, and now SATA drives. Moving from Motorola to Intel processors was just the final move in that.

It isn't just about Apple being proprietary and ornery (though that certainly is an element). Where most vendors adopted the common standard because it was common, Apple adopted or invented a better standard because it was better. For all their hassle, SCSI drives offered a lot more options than IDE back in the day. ADB was much more elegant at a time when PCs were still using RS-232 and then PS-2 to run a mouse. Apple's proprietary video connector was ahead of he curve when VGA meant 640 x 480. And so on. When the more popular standard becomes capable enough, Apple jumps over to it. That's the pattern.

Lowering consumer costs was certainly a consideration, but I still think performance came first. The 68000 was certainly a faster chip than the 8088, and through the years, Motorola delivered processors that were usually at least the equal of Intel's. But in the last few years, Motorola lost its edge and, frankly, lost interest, because there was more and easier money to be made in cell phones. With Intel holding a clear and sustainable lead, Apple jumped. A lot of folks saw it as a departure, but to me it fits the trend.

Things will stay the way they are at Apple for some time. They're making revenue on their iPods and other consumer devices like the proposed do-it-all PDA/phone they're whispering about. That, and the business of selling MP3s.

They make good revenue on Macs, too. To me, if I were running Apple, the first question would be, "Can we do it better?" If the answer is yes, then let's do it. If the answer is no or maybe, let's let others do it. Apple shouldn't ever get into the business of making commodity hardware -- other companies are better at it. `It would be like Rolls/Bentley trying to build a car for the Dodge Neon market segment.

If they didn't have that, they'd be in the position of selling their Cinema Displays for twice the cost of a comparable ViewSonic LCD that has the exact same specs (and probably has the same LCD matrix that Apple uses because they both came from the same Asian LCD manufacturer) with the exception that Apple's costs double because it has a sexy brushed aluminum case.`

In fairness, there's more to it than the case. The Apple has all the display controls in software -- no futzing with buttons and clunky menus. It has tight color calibration, which isn't very important to most people, but when it is important, it's critical. The USB hub function is built more elegantly into the Apple display -- the cables are bundled and clustered the right way. And when the computer is in sleep mode, the button on the front of the monitor pulses -- in sync with the light on the front of the CPU. It's a silly touch, but an elegant one.

You're right about the display -- I have a 20" Dell on my desk at home and used to have a 20" Apple on my desk at work, and to my eyes they're identical. Probably the same panel from the same supplier. The Apple has clear advantages, as listed above, and if you offered me either I'd pick the Apple without hesitation. But when it came time to buy, those advantages didn't add up to $500 worth.

[The KG9 Kid]

I liked your reply, but I still maintain that it always boils down to money. Just like every company, there's still manufacturing guys that look at DVT hardware protos and see what can be eliminated or modified to save four or forty dollars multiplied by 250,000 units.

As an aside, there is still one Apple hardware component I preferred to anything that was selling in the PC world: The USB keyboard.

I insist on heavy keyboards. I type really fast and I'm just particular that way. Most PC peripheral manufacturers offer featherweight keyboards made of thin plastic that seems like it's the quality of that low-grade plastic used to make those curlycue doodads to clip men's dress socks together in the department store. The Apple USB keyboard is made of heavy Lexan, has the neat side-mount USB ports, and takes up a small desktop footprint unlike the Microsoft 'ergonomic' behemoth that many people use.

I swore by them for PC use until I recently got a Logitech G15. I loved the Apple USB keyboard, but I went through one a year on average because the electronics in it weren't very robust. Even compressed air wouldn't clean it and the buttons would lose their springiness over time. They also looked hideous after they collected dust over the months because the case was transparent. Ah well. Call it heresy, but I never liked the Apple Extended II ADB keyboard. I also don't care about tactile click, but I'll take it or leave it.

WinXP recognized the Apple USB Keyboard in PnP and even mapped out the button assignments just as they were screen printed on the keys by Apple. I still travel through the Apple stores just to see if there's anything that I might like.

[D-fendr]

In most cases, and in particular the subset I was focusing on, you're right.

However, there are a lot of business and tech specialized applications that are only ported to Windows.

Specialized database apps for example and something as simple as a configuration app for a router. I recently bought a CF card reader that had a little special function app - Windows only.

I agree with your point however, for most average users.

[ReignOfError]

However, there are a lot of business and tech specialized applications that are only ported to Windows.

Specialized database apps for example and something as simple as a configuration app for a router.

I bought two identical Netgear wireless routers, one for my brother's Windows-based network and one for my Mac-based one. They came with a "setup wizard" for Windows, nothing for Mac. After a quick skim of the manual, I found that I could just type in the IP address and configure the router via a browser interface.

I recently bought a CF card reader that had a little special function app - Windows only.

Odds are, whatever that special function is, there's a program on the Mac that does it. Probably freeware or open-source.

I've bought card readers, flash drives, USB and firewire hard drives, all of which came with a driver CD. I tossed the CD, plugged the device in, and it showed up on the desktop. Like the 500 text editors, it's just another case of more software I couldn't run, didn't need and won't miss.

There are some files and databases that can only be opened in one application, which only runs on Windows. There used to be a lot more of those, and there will be fewer in the future. The trend is toward open standards, and if you don't port your client app to Mac or *ix, someone else will write one. Maybe even in Java.

Way back in the day, Apple had a lock on graphics and DTP, because Quark and Photoshop were Mac-only. Windows has a few niches like that, but smaller. And they won't last. The biggest gap is in real-time games, and now that Macs are running on Intel processors, I'd expect those ports to be much faster and more common than they used to be.

[sine_nomine]

I think it has more eye candy and is more media oriented. I have no reason to buy it.

[arthurus]

I did nothing but curse Windows until I installed W2k a year ago. Now I have few complaints. Using W2k with Firefox has been pretty smooth sailing.

[Paleo Conservative]

I did nothing but curse Windows until I installed W2k a year ago.

What were you running before Win98? I haven't seen Win2K on a store shelf in well over a year. Where did you find it?

[arthurus]

I got it on line. And yes it was W98 previous. I will not get a new W OS until it has been on the market for a couple of years. Let other folks experience all the glitches. But Imay not replace W2K at all. I don't play games and I don't design nuclear weapons or download music so W2k will be sufficient for a long time to come.

[Red_Devil 232]

Kinda hard piloting an aircraft from the aft port-a-potty!