She gets it, she really gets it

Really great post. It´s all I ever wanted to say...Like you Paul, I just sped a lot of time shaking my head with so much crap things I read about Vista, Vista SP1, and all those "experts" adivices.

I wondered how close we were to the Windows XP launch, and it is so funny reading it because you could replace XP with Vista in every place. In fact, there is even a comment from someone saying that they don't need the eye candy. hilarious. http://www.news.com/2009-1001-274436.html

"XP got some bad press but NOTHING like Vista." blogs were also non-existant back then too.

"I spend a lot of time shaking my head over what I see as illogical reactions to things in the tech industry" Now you know the feeling of your blog's readers. Head-shaking is inescapable for WinSupersite.

You know, with all this revisionist history going around, I have to point out that Windows XP has a really awful, terrible problem with malware. Find me a regular home user (not one with a SysAdmin relative) running XP that doesn't have some form of malware/spyware/trojan horse/botnet nonsense on their machines. I'm sure there are ten or eleven home XP users with clean machines, but it certainly isn't a majority. I feel bad about this, but I've gone to more than one person's house and used their PCs to print a map or something minor, and I can tell immediately that their PC is INFESTED with spyware. If I open my mouth, I get to spend four hours cleaning it up, so I tell them later, after I've left. I'm on record as saying that I think Mac OS X is better for a lot of home users. I also know that Vista is not immune to malware, but I think it's better than XP, and that by itself is enough reason to justify the upgrade.

I honestly feel for Microsoft when it comes to all these people complaining about backwards compatibility. How the hell are they supposed to fix and improve things when so many IT drones and third party devs are complaining that the fixes will break something of theirs? Apple has done a really good job, I think, of conditioning it's userbase to abandon old technologies pretty rapidly. Again, this is probably the difference between a consumer/small business focus and Microsoft's large enterprise focus. Apple will never give up it's ability to drop busted old tech and that means they'll never be fit for the enterprise the way Microsoft has compromised themselves to be. I mean, jesus. Microsoft projects what they're doing so far out and yet these companies still bitch about things getting broken. Maybe it's actual coding incompetence on MS's part that things break, but my guess is this is just mission impossible. I wish MS could do a true clean break from the past for Windows 7 and have older apps just run in a virtual layer the way OSX ran OS9 apps in "classic".

"That might work if Windows only had to be compatible with 8 or 9 applications ;)" Hardie har har. Seriously, though. If Apple can do this with reasonable success... then switch from powerpc to intel with amazing success... then switch to true 64bit OS... Microsoft should be able to do the same.

"Don't forget that Apple has standardized hardware. " A this point, isn't it all the same shit? There's only two CPU makers, two GPU makers, a small handful of chipset people. Apple's Intel hardware is not really any different from an architecture standpoint than a PC (aside from their use of the more-modern EFI bios). I think it's arguably a bigger technical challenge to release and maintain two separate processor architectures (Intel and PowerPC for all OS's, updates and applications) than it is to modernize for a bunch of near-identical commodity hardware. Seriously. Is a Dell Santa Rosa laptop THAT much different from an HP or Gateway or Apple? I can't imagine so. And since essentially everyone, including Paul, recommends getting Vista with a new PC (and that's what most users already do anyway)... why would it be so hard? If someone doesn't like it with old hardware? Tough. Keep your shit until you can afford to upgrade the whole thing. It's not like the release of a new OS instantly renders the previous one unusable. Maybe with the new leadership in the Windows group, they'll have the balls to cut out all the legacy cruft, sandbox it in Hyper V and move on. Bye Bye registry. Here's hoping for the PC world.

"recommends getting Vista with a new PC (and that's what most users already do anyway)" Hey....I agree that people should be upgrading to new hardware with the new OS, but the fact is that businesses don't and refuse to do it. In fact, organizations will never give users hardware which is in line with what a new OS needs. Example, a business will run: Windows 2000 on hardware which barely would run XP Windows XP on hardware which barely would run Vista Windows 2000 -> 512MB RAM Windows XP -> 1GB RAM - Remember how cheap RAM is? Does it matter? Not really. I'm with you johnpapola. I just don't think Microsoft will ever cut its precious business market for the betterment of the users OR the betterment of the OS. Maybe that means new management to take a risk and break backwards compatibility, but I think its import to remember that it is a BIG risk.

The only "Vista-only" application that makes use of WPF that I can think of is the Yahoo Messenger for Windows Vista which is in beta right now. It is a good point you make, I have no idea the complexity of leveraging Core Animation, but I know WPF is not what I'd call "easy". Windows XP is still where all the users are and where the development time is going. I don't know how much time would be required to develop a WPF UI within the same application and determine the UI based on the OS, if it is possible. Also, how does that compare to leveraging Core Animation? I'd like to know. I just wish that Microsoft would put in some time and make a WPF Live apps like messenger to show what can be done. Why is Yahoo doing it and not Microsoft? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there are Apple employee devs making Widgets, why aren't there more Microsoft development hours going into Gadgets?

"Is a Dell Santa Rosa laptop THAT much different from an HP or Gateway or Apple? I can't imagine so." ....and you would be wrong. every hardware OEM customizes hardware from other ODM's. many of those customizations have to do with firmwares and device BIOS's being modified, customized with features, or just have the PnPID's changed. every little change requires a different driver version too. Microsoft doen't write those drivers - the OEM's do. anyone that's had a Dell-branded Sound Blaster sound card will tell you the trials and tribulations of software compatibility with Dell's drivers. also, anybody that's tried to play a game on a notebook computer where the notebook manufacturer doesn't update their video drivers will tell you the pains of it all. those are only some easy examples that I can pull off the top of my head, but I could go on and on.... Apple designs the OS, and they have their hardware customized to their plans, so they can control the software and driver interconnections with the hardware much more easily than Microsoft can, what with their fairly hands-off experience with the hardware, not having control over the manufacturing process and all. "ditching parallel ports" very few new motherboards ship with parallel ports, serial ports, and most don't even come with PS/2 kb/mouse ports anymore. the systems i sell sure as hell don't anyway. what i find funny though, is that Intel-made motherboards (which I use in many systems I sell), don't ship with a floppy drive controller (nor the internal ribbon-cable connector, obviously), and yet they still include the "F6 floppy disk" in the box for installing XP on a RAID or AHCI SATA controller. i asked them why, and they say it's a mistake in manufacturing that they never bothered to rectify. silly really. what's even funnier is that the Intel BIOS doesn't allow you to even emulate an internal floppy with a USB drive, so the floppy disk is garbage, and you can't use RAID or AHCI SATA on XP because of it. doesn't matter to my system manufacturing either - the floppy goes in the garbage, and new systems all get Vista, which includes the drivers anyway. "Can anyone point out Vista-only applications that make use of WPF to deliver modern UIs?" any web application utilizing Silverlight essentially uses the same features as WPF, but is back/side-ported to multiple operating systems and browsers. it's not a complete implementation of WPF though. oh and btw: .NET Framework 3.0 is available for XP also, just so you know. if you're going to counter with "then what's the point to move to Vista?", then I'm going to counter you with this statement: "why would a Windows iTunes user want to switch to a Mac?"

"I assume, then, that you must be writing the drivers for the machines you sell, right?" your ignorance is telling again. as I said before, i am NOT a major OEM, so I don't have that "luxury" (if you can call it that) of buying directly from ODM's. I wouldn't want to put my customers through that anyway - I build and sell systems using off-the-shelf non-customized "OEM" (actually ODM) and (sometimes) retail hardware that is built using the component manufacturers reference designs, meaning people can go to Creative, NVIDIA, Intel, or whoever to get reference drivers for their system, if necessary. the reference drivers are often much more stable and reliable than any of that customized OEM crap - the reference drivers are what get WHQL approval first, and work on the largest set of hardware. "Some of these look a bit like goofy Flash sites brought to life as desktop applications." ditto for the OS X UI.

Waethorn, Again, not sure why you're arguing against a desire for Microsoft to do a clean break and move compatibility into virtualization. I am ignorant of how Dell or HP customizes their hardware. I'm pretty accustomed, though, to what you do, since that is how I always got my PCs straight up to 2001 when I switched. I always built my own systems from the best reviewed components and used the reference drivers. And since, I believe, nearly 50% of all PC sales are "white box" local builders like yourself, that makes for a pretty massive chunk of the market working with a pretty small set of drivers from Nvida, ATI/AMD and Intel. Then consider how just a few major brands dominate the rest of the market, I think it's fair to argue that Microsoft could quite manageably move to a clean codebase. They are making billions a quarter in pure profit after all. Not sure why you'd have a problem with any of this. I'm not saying "Microsoft is evil and sucks". I'm merely suggesting a path that many have suggested for Windows to follow into the future. And yes, there are a few over-the-top FX in OSX (time machine starfield, widget ripple effect), but most of them are minimalist, tasteful and purposeful for directing the eye (like the genie effect). You simply can't argue that the both Apple and Microsoft can learn from each other. If you do, you've got blinders on.

Thank you for your compliment. I agree with you that we need competition in the market and Microsoft definitely needs to ask itself how it is going to build brand trust back in. I'm a PC user, but I also know you are 100% right about the iPod and the iPhone. I also agree that unless Microsoft does something, they will slowly start conceding the market to Apple. Anyway, here's my question: How can Microsoft build back customer trust AND engage the community? WPF probably hasn't caught on because the developers do not trust Microsoft AND why adopt new standards when they are constantly changing? Also, does Microsoft still wield the power to tighten the standards and drag the OEMs into compliance? If they currently have that power, I think it is fair to say that their grip is slowly loosening. I think it's time for Microsoft to go back to what I'm positive it can do: build high quality software. They need to quit punching holes into it too. Just think about Vista SP1. They made holes for Google AND they punched holes into the kernel (in 64-bit Vista) for the Anti-Virus makers to have access. Kernel Patch Protection was a revolutionary idea. Why should a software company make changes to keep another software company in business? Would Apple do that?.....I say NO! What do you think?

I appreciate a real discussion, brost, so thank you. My feeling is sort of like this. I was a die-hard custom-box-building, apple's business-model-sucks, Windows partisan from my computing beginnings until 2001. What broke that for me first and foremost was the move from having ample free time as a student, to having no free time as a young man struggling to start my career. That time deficit eliminated my tolerance for tinkering with computer problems and trouble shooting (which up to that point was fun for me). I wanted to first and foremost USE the machine to accomplish tasks. And, being in TV, I was exposed to the Mac (OS9 at the time). At first, I thought it sucked (and OS 9 was an unstable mess, compared to Win 2000). But after a number of missed job opportunities due to my home computer failing me with application and system crashes requiring day-long system re-installations, I began to notice that I was simply more productive on the Mac. Final Cut put it over the edge for me. For consumers now, I think iLife offers that draw. All this combined with the Wired magazine expose on the Microsoft anti-trust case (which up to that point I considered a government witch-hunt) dramatically changed my perspective on Microsoft and the value of the PC. 7 years later, having pushed my Macs amazingly hard in very demanding situations, I'm (obviously) more happy with my platform choice now than ever and I see nothing Microsoft can do to get me back on Windows. Seeing the broad brand move that's clearly taken place and is evident in everything from PC Magazine consumer surveys, to Changewave future purchasing surveys, to College marketshare (where Apple is gaining HUGE)... the future seems to be very bright for Apple and the brand perception has turned against Microsoft. So, to answer your first question: I think Microsoft's #1 objective for change should be: FOCUS! Stop chasing every single market on earth. They are so reactionary, so quick to jump on whatever people are excited about with a "me-too" effort (even if that effort is pretty good). It just creates a cascading level of complexity that they're clearly unable to synchronize and manage effectively. This purchase of Yahoo could possibly be the end of the company for this very reason. It'll be a long slow change, but I can't see how it will work well. So, make Windows being amazing job #1. Draw a line in the sand and put every previous OS in a virtual machine ala Classic. Then, make the dream OS. Keep what works, and forget what doesn't. Make it modular from the ground up. Make decoupled design the new ethos and ditch this monolithic integration garbage that has rendered Windows impossible to maintain. Think Windows Explorer vs. Mac OSX's finder. Job #2 need to be to clean up their communication. Simplify the message and stay to it. Stop the god-awful marketing speak and buzzword babble that permeates every executive interview from this place. Steve Jobs isn't a wizard or a liar. He simply calls things as he sees them. He doesn't talk about "synergy" or "connected experiences". That talk is WORTHLESS. Jobs talks PRODUCTS. If you watch how he works with an unbiased eye, and ignore his hype of things being "the best in the world", Jobs is all about the product in very tangible ways. Job #3: stop providing solutions for problems that don't exist. This is a big one and it's linked to #2. Take note of the social networking fatigue. People don't have the time to do the things they already want to do, let alone buy products that introduce new things to do on top of that. If Microsoft approached their products with an eye on real people and their limited time, it'd be a huge step forward. Every CES, Gates has given a ridiculous "in the future" presentation that pitches countless multi-screened computers everywhere delivering a life that could only be described as wall-to-wall non-stop secretarial work. The general "in the future" stuff has just got to stop. which leads me to the last main point: Job #4: Only announce and demonstrate working technology. Talk to the community, bring in feedback. Be open about broad goals and ask a ton of questions. But stop with the vaporware demos and paper releases. Just never do it again. Steve Jobs never would have mentioned Win FS if he wasn't sure it would work. Nobody even knew that Apple was working on anything like Spotlight until it was demonstrated, even though it was more than two years in the making. For those that argue that developers and enterprises need advance warning... I say this. How did knowing about WinFS help, given that it never came out? Has knowing about WPF for years resulted in a broad move to it by the Windows community? Nope. All their approach does is setup disappointment and confuse the market for years. Maybe that's been the goal, to chill the market for competitors (I'm sure it was) but it's not working anymore. Now it's just the boy who cried wolf. If all this sounds like Apple... that's because I truly believe that all of these things are the reasons for Apple's new success.

Totally agree with you John. I always take studies like the one you linked to with a grain of salt, but I think that the trend it presents is what needs to be fixed. Microsoft has started to be less open about things now where they should be (example: Windows 7). However, they have also been too quiet in other areas like IE8.0 and the Home Server data corruption issue. I hope that what I'm seeing is a sign of hope for the future, but Microsoft still has a long way to go. On an exciting note, has anyone else seen some the demonstrations for Silverlight 2.0? If you haven't, checkout the Mix '08 keynote. (Links to videos here: http://www.jcxp.net/news.php?newsid=2264) I think this is exciting and could (stressing) COULD lead to something great, like a common language across platforms. Native apps served over the web.