Posted on 04/10/2005 6:06:02 AM PDT by infocats
TEN years ago, Microsoft unveiled Windows 95 in a way that suggested that the product's arrival was no less momentous than when humans stood upright for the first time. The company spent about $200 million introducing the operating system. That paid for festivities on the Microsoft campus (with Jay Leno as M.C.), rights to use the Rolling Stones song "Start Me Up" in a global advertising campaign and permission to bathe the Empire State Building at night with the Windows logo. It also loaded The Times of London with Windows 95 advertising that day, making the newspaper a one-day freebie, a first in its 307 years.
What was remarkable about the Windows 95 introduction was the acquiescence of customers, who participated so willingly in the spectacle. Microsoft arranged for retail outlets to open at midnight on the day the system would first be available, a stunt that proved as irresistible as klieg lights at a Hollywood premiere. One chain counted some 50,000 people lined up at its stores across the country.
These people were chasing an operating system, of all things - plumbing that serves a necessary function, to be sure, but of no more intrinsic interest than the pipes that snake below the floorboards of a house. In 1995, however, Microsoft managed to make the mundane appear life-changing. The Seattle Times quoted one happy midnight customer, standing with his wife, who predicted that "this is going to enhance our marriage."
Windows XP, introduced in 2001, could not match Windows 95's remarkable debut. We can hope that XP's successor, which has the code name "Longhorn" and is scheduled for release next year, will appear quietly, bringing us closer to the day when users need know no more about a PC's operating system than they do of the embedded software in a cellphone.
Longhorn's gestation has already extended much longer than originally planned. Rumors of its existence surfaced in 2001, when the system was said to have been chosen as a quick "intermediate" update of XP. Time passed, and the news media were permitted a sneak preview. But completion of even this, the interim release, came no closer. Determined to get it out the door by 2006, Microsoft decided in 2004 to remove a new file system for organizing data on the hard drive, what the company had earlier promoted as the heart of the new system. If and when this feature ever appears, it is unlikely to enhance anyone's marriage.
Regretful that it had announced an important feature that it subsequently had to remove, the company decided to remain quiet about other aspects for as long as possible. Microsoft has given software developers beta versions of two new components, for graphics and Web services, but these will be available for Windows XP customers, too. The company has yet to say what exactly will be a Longhorn-only improvement.
Microsoft's reticence cannot last much longer. In two weeks, it will be host for a conference for hardware vendors, setting down the minimum specifications that must be met in order to run Longhorn. You may be eager to know whether that PC on your desk will meet the specs. If your PC does not, it's unlikely that you will replace it just to be able to run the latest version of Windows. Michael Cherry, a senior analyst at Directions on Microsoft, a consulting firm based in Kirkland, Wash., observes that many PC users now treat their computers like TV sets.
"Unless the TV doesn't turn on," he says, "they won't replace them."
Mr. Cherry expressed skepticism about the appeal of enhanced graphics for him and others who spend most of their time using a word processor, an e-mail program and a browser. "How are 3-D graphics really going to change my life?" he wondered.
Another analyst, Rob Enderle, president of the Enderle Group, greets the system with more enthusiasm, predicting that Longhorn will provide "vast improvements in security." We can cheer this happy prospect, but at the same time we must ignore the snide laughs of Macintosh users who have yet to encounter a virus. No matter how solid and secure Longhorn's code appears, Microsoft will need a lot of independent voices providing verification and reassurance.
The professional caretakers of corporate PC's seem rather leery of Microsoft's promises these days, spurning the most recent package of security improvements and bug fixes offered for Windows XP. Last week, AssetMetrix Research Labs, a research firm based in Ottawa, released the results of a survey of 251 North American companies, measuring the adoption of Windows XP. Only 7 percent of companies had actively embraced the latest improvements, Service Pack 2, released six months ago. The improvements, it turns out, introduce software-compatibility problems. These can be overcome with tinkering but not without aggravation and additional cost for fixes that should not have been necessary in the first place.
Compatibility issues will loom larger in the future. Longhorn is unlikely to co-exist peaceably with existing software that sits atop the operating system. Mr. Enderle said that gaining enhanced security necessitates making a break with the complementary software of the past, which means "compatibility is going to suffer."
Windows XP may prove to be a tenacious paterfamilias, unwilling to move aside for the next generation. Security holes notwithstanding, it is the most stable version of Windows to date. That very stability will make it difficult for the company to market Longhorn as a release more important than XP itself, a prediction that Bill Gates, Microsoft's chairman, made in 2003.
Predictions do not fare well when the computing world moves faster than the lumbering mass of Microsoft's Windows division. Linux constitutes an alternative model, employing fleet feet and frequent releases.
Mark Lucovsky, a software engineer, recently described in his blog the process of writing code for a project like Longhorn and the long wait before it reaches a customer's PC. First, a bug fix or added feature is deposited in a source code control system, where it may sit for years. Eventually it is transferred into a product release and pressed into CD's. Months pass, even in the final stage, from release to manufacturing to arrival at the customer's receiving department. Slow.
By contrast, engineers who work on improvements for a newer form of operating system, the software that powers Web sites, can roll out work almost instantaneously. Mr. Lucovsky recounts how a friend at Amazon discovered a performance issue, found a fix, tested it and had it in place, all in a day. "Not a single customer had to download a bag of bits, answer any silly questions, prove that they are not software thieves, reboot their computers, etc.," he wrote. "The software was shipped to them, and they didn't have to lift a finger."
MR. LUCOVSKY'S remarks are of interest because he knows a thing or two about developing operating systems. He was a senior architect of Windows NT, was the chief keeper of the keys for the source code and was named by Microsoft in 2000 as one among its inaugural batch of distinguished engineers. Recently, after 16 years at Microsoft, however, he said he decided that he had been wrong in thinking that Microsoft knew best "how to ship software."
It was other companies, the ones who understood the potential of the Internet and software-as-a-service, that were best able to deliver benefits to customers "efficiently and quickly," he said. He resigned from Microsoft and has joined one of those other companies: Google.
Randall Stross is a historian and author based in Silicon Valley. E-mail: ddomain@nytimes.com.
Thanks, I asked about a PS2-to-USB converter to stick in front of the KVM switch, they told me it would not work. Kinda pissed me off as I could't think of why inot and left empty handed. It's a long drive to compUSA, I wanted to leave with a new system, but didn't want to spend $1000 and I didn't want XP as an OS. Well I can nurse these old P1's and P2's along for a while longer, but it would be nice to have a little more horse power. If OSX is unix then I should be able to telnet to it as a last resort. I also have XWindows installed not the PCs so I should be able to run mac apps that have XWindows UIs withot problems. I might just go buy the damn thing today and be done with it. But I'd like a to know more about OSX first.
have you, or anyone u know, tried xp mce 2005 on a 64bit athlon? i recently got into the mania of streaming music/video/pictures to appliances/computers/pda's and whatnot and want to try MS's solution in addition to UPnP media servers i am presently running (twonkyvision). Heck, i finally broke down and bought an xbox mainly for the mce extender capability.
Never mind that. Will the next version of Windows be worth the cost of the upgrade???
Yeah, but that line is right at the climax of the song ... errr, uhhh ... I meant end of the song.
The KVM switch and a new USB keyboard may be your best option, but you can use Microsoft's free Remote Desktop Connection Client for Mac to access a Windows 2000 or XP Pro screen on a Mac. You can also use free implementations of the VNC protocol for that purpose. And the Mac can be a client or a server in a Windows file sharing environment. Telnet is available, but ssh is the preferred method for remote terminal access.
It's a long drive to compUSA
Check today's Best Buy flyer in your Sunday newspaper. They are selling Mac minis now.
I can. They've been having huge problems with the fact that most people see no particular reason to upgrade their software. Take a poll and see how many folks are still running MSOffice-97, as oposed to the newer XP version. Upgrades are a big deal for microsoft.
Check out the number of people on this thread who have not upgraded since Win98. MS considers this money lost.
I really hope they break backwards compatability even more than they did with XP (not to mention SP2). It will get more people to look at alternatives to the defective products marketed out of Redmond.
I think they'll see the upgrade revenue potential as more of a monetary incentive to them than the hit they may take from people switching. They are probably right in this, as I can't tell you how many times I've seen people yelling and screaming about how messed up windows is, and how it had thrashed itself and needs to be reloaded, along with the anti-virus/anti-spyware programs and everything else, yet they still go ahead and reload rather than consider anything else that might actually work better for them.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting different results. I think many MS users are, by definition, insane, thus they'll continue on the treadmill because they are too frightened at the thought of stepping off.
I remember all of those DOS programmers who swore they would never use a mouse, and a lot of them still have a DOS mentality in 2005. For the vast majority of users, the ability to run a program written in 1981 is not essential - especially considering all of the bugs and security problems associated with obsolete environments.
Gates focused on what customers wanted.
Sure, everyone knows that Microsoft's customers wanted a big stinking pile of worms, viruses and spyware. And Gates delivered.
No.
I've crashed XP so many times that I've lost count. I no longer bother to send MS those error messages that automatically appear when it crashes.
That was the one. It was a video that "morphed" the band into a Happy Days episode.
Yeah that was a terrific video. That particular album was also really good. That video turned me and my sister on to them.
Good observation, R.
I think his sticking point is that nothing runs in 256KB of ram these days. If you meant 256 MB of ram, that's a couple of orders of magnitude or so different.
Hey, my brother lives in a cave too. He's happy as a lark with his Win 98. I have had exactly zero trouble with Win XP-- including SP2. I figure I'll stick with Win XP as long as I can.
Windows 98 is faster (on my machine anyway), crashes less and is more virus resistant.
64mb was the minimum, 256kb was recommended.
I guess my claim is based on the time I had my friend's machine and saw no improvement in how snappily windows opened nor speed in web surfing.
You shouldn't ever post your experience as indicative of Win 98 running as fast as Win XP because you have no idea how to gauge the two.
I do. I have been building PC's since the mid 90's, my first a PII 450. My current machine is a P4 2.8C. I have run Win 95, 98, 2000, and XP on my machines (5 iterations). My boot times in Win 98 were approx 1:15. Today, my machine takes 83 seconds to boot to the signon screen, and that's after two raid arrays initialize (each one taking approx 5 sec in the startup). Additionally, I can assure you that using benchmarks my PC kicks a Win 98 machines a$$.
Windows XP is more efficient, faster and more powerful than Win 98. Anyone who claims otherwise has never taken the time to adequetly compare the two.
Of course, if you're running a PII or first gen PIII I could see how Win 98 can run faster. Then again, your system would suck, IMO.
My prediction is that it will be massive, slow, and full of bugs and copy protection/spying features. Even the newer computers will struggle to run it, and the boot up time will be approximately three times the boot up time of a Pentium 60 from 1994 running Windows 3.1.
Hate to bother you with an off topic question, but if you could help at all...
I need to go the other way for training sessions. Need to have an XP client observe/control a Mac (Panther) server. The XP is offsite, access is through a VPN.
I've tried Timbuktu til I'm tired - keeps freezing after 30-50 minutes. Both ends have broadband (DSL w/fixed IP on the Mac).
I've heard of Chicken of the VNC, but am wary of too much config/setup for OSS. And I'm clueless on setting up VNC on XP.
Should I pursue VNC more or maybe look at Apple's Remote Desktop; any suggestions?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.