How Windows Can Save Itself: Three Things We Want to See in Windows 7
With everyone calling out Windows' imminent doom from the rooftops, it's easy (though incorrect) to believe that the OS doesn't have much longer to live as a platform. While it's premature to say that we're looking at the twilight of Microsoft, it is fair to say that the trend of Microsoft's slowly-but-steadily declining market share will continue unless they make a radical change in their software design.
Since Microsoft makes a point of attempting to support legacy software and hardware, seeing them undergo the kind of sea-change that Apple underwent in releasing OS X is unlikely. But the case for it is there: Apple took a huge risk in releasing OS X, since doing so meant that it required nearly their entire user base to re-buy software and hardware or face immediate obsolescence. But Apple went through because they had no choice; with their stock tanked and the company losing money, it was either rethink their design philosophy or file bankruptcy.
Microsoft, with its dominant 90%+ of market share, doesn't feel the need to make such a leap. And despite what a lot of pundits are saying, they really can't afford to. Apple was able to introduce OS X in an environment where they had no significant market share, and then grow the user base comfortably over time. It's one thing to take the risk of asking 3% of the market to repurchase all of their software and peripherals-- quite a different thing to ask 91% of the market to do the same.
Windows Vista was Microsoft's attempt at bridging that gap between presenting a new kernel design philosophy and still offering legacy support. It didn't really work. Apple's kernel redesigning gamble paid off because it offered a suite of new features, functionality, and stability over previous versions. Vista's half-hearted attempt orphaned too many programs and peripherals to offset its few improvements.
The new "I'm a PC" ad campaign is a step in the right direction for realigning Windows' perception in the marketplace, but PR isn't really the main issue Microsoft needs to address--it's their sprawling, unaligned design philosophy that causes them to rush half-finished products to market.
Microsoft needs to innovate in order to remain competitive, and hopefully Windows 7 will show the innovation that Microsoft is capable of when it doesn't get in its own way. Not much information has been leaked about Windows 7 yet except that it may hit the market as early as next year and that it will support multitouch. Multitouch support is a good start because it argues for a stronger embedded device presence. In that vein, here are three more things I want to see in Windows 7 that I think would strengthen the platform and even bring me back from the Ubuntu fold.
1) Boot into multiple environments, and virtualize between them. Let's face it, Microsoft has been trying to have it both ways with legacy support vs. kernel design and it hasn't really been working. So split the difference: at logon, give the user the option to boot into either the latest version of Windows, or a legacy kernel that supports pre-Vista software and hardware. (My admittedly shabby "artist's rendition" of this is below.) This gives all the latitude needed for more innovative design in the new kernel, because it wouldn't be hobbled by attempts at legacy support, and eliminates the need for the disastrous "upgrading to a older version" that crippled Vista adoption. You could even get more specific with microkernels: for example, give the user options between environments optimized for certain tasks like gaming, or functioning as a media center or a server. Also, allow the environments to virtualize each other, so that you can run an older program under Windows 7 for example without having to log out and log back in under a different environment. One thing Mac and Linux have all over Windows is the ability for casual users to virtualize other environments--technically speaking it's nothing Windows can't do, and it should.
2) Integrate Live service as a package manager and software store for Windows. One thing I truly love about Linux is its incredibly well-designed package managers, such as Yum and Synaptic; you can browse a live catalog of software, checkmark the programs you want, and the software simply and cleanly installs itself, and updates itself after install whenever patches or upgrades are released. There are services like Steam and Microsoft's own Live service on the 360 that emulate this behavior somewhat in a Windows environment, but Windows 7 should take the leap to a full package management system based on Live and integrated with Windows Update. The Linux versions all provide only free (as in beer and speech) software, but there's no reason a Windows version of such a service couldn't incorporate a Steam-like store to sell "Microsoft-certified" software. And because the wide range of freeware development is one of the major arguments for still using Windows, 7 could also provide digitally signed, safe repositories for the loads of free software out there. This would supplement, not replace, the traditional method of installing programs; but besides being a huge step in selling ease of use and breadth of applications, doing so would be a step to prevent users from infecting their machines with malware by giving them a trusted market for software. Think Apple's iPhone App Store, but more open and robust, and integrated with Windows' own native update service.
3) Sell one extensible version of Windows 7, not twenty "editions". I still can't think of a defensible reason to sell multiple versions of the same operating system that vary as slightly as the versions of Vista do. The two steps above would eliminate the need to sell multiple editions: you buy the base kernel and environment, and extend it via the Live-derived software package and update manager to become the version you need. You could even sell additional microkernel environments like Micrsoft Server or Media Center, since they'd install separately and simply be an addition to the master boot record. The key caution of this approach is not to nickel and dime the customers to death in trying to meet their basic computing needs, but the core concept is sound.
The main idea here is that Windows 7 provide a unified, extensible architecture that's flexible enough to power anything from embedded portable devices to server arrays, without shortchanging the desktop user. Is it possible? Sure--all of the above ideas already exist in some form or another, they just need to be combined. Will Microsoft do it? Who knows, but here's hoping they've learned something from the Vista debacle beyond just the need for better, less alienating PR.
--Aric A.
Micha Elyi on September 29, 2008 at 05:53 PM
Making multiple editions of Windows is little more than a tactic by Microsoft to indulge in price discrimination. People who buy expensive hardware are sold the Media Center edition and thereby milked for a bit more money on their Windows purchase. Businesses are also milked for more money.
Heck, the two editions on the bottom end of Microsoft's capability pyramid for Windows are designed to set prices higher for customers in the IP piracy-fighting countries compared to what customers elsewhere are charged.
ed on September 29, 2008 at 08:27 PM
larry j said: "Listen, I didn't buy a computer to only run security updates. I bought my computer to, you know, actually use it to do stuff."
that's why i switched to Ubuntu linux. it NEVER bugs me about anything. no virus scans, no defragging. it leaves me alone to do what i need it to. i'll never use any microsoft product ever again.
Alan on September 29, 2008 at 09:53 PM
I think you're right on with #3. Instead of creating all of these packages by disabling arbitrary features, they should start with a barebones OS and let you add the features you need "a la carte". What always bugged me about running XP Home was the complete arbitrariness of the features that were disabled. (File permissions? I can't set file permissions???)
But frankly your #2 suggestion is scary. MS is already the implicit gatekeeper for third party software by virtue of being the OS maker, if they did what you suggest (which the DOJ would never allow), they'd be the explicit gatekeeper. The words "Microsoft Certified" make me shudder. The industry has had quite enough of crawling to Microsoft for approval, thank you.
Honestly, though, there isn't much Microsoft could do to tempt me back from Linux again. People can trash Linux all they want, but once you get used to that freedom, it gets pretty aggravating to be told you can't do something on an OS just because you didn't pay for the right version. Puh-leeeze
Eric on September 29, 2008 at 10:36 PM
I would like to echo ajacksonian's comment on UI design, and how changing it affects business/productivity users. When I first started fooling with Beryl/Compiz on Linux, I really loved spinning that cube around just to watch it. But from a productivity perspective, all this does is get in the way and act as a distraction.
I actually think XP is pretty dang nice. Granted I have the skills and knowledge of 3rd party apps (and most all open source), where I have been able to fine-tune my XP desktop quite a bit with things like a 3x3 virtual desktop grid (virtuawin.sf.net), application launcher (launchy.sf.net), cool task switcher (taskswitchXP), and many, many other things. But my point is that my XP desktop is primed for productivity. I have used Linux for some time and honestly I don't see it there in many ways (though there are things I like about it). I am of course making this statement on a much enhanced XP desktop.
Microsoft should build a rock solid OS core, and everything else should be optional. Eye candy for eye candy's sake is crap if it gets in the way of getting good work done. Small, lean, efficient, etc., etc. I am not sure how they handle the legacy situation, but I am sure they can work it out.
If the right decisions are made, and good work is done, I wouldn't count MS out. They make good developer tools, and from what I understand it isn't too bad of an environment to develop on (though I am not a developer, developer, developer, developer -- for those of you who get that).
Okay, enough said. For now I'll take my tweaked XP and various *nix like OS's I install on my multi-boot machine. Works for me.
khafa on September 29, 2008 at 10:38 PM
I remember the days (college time) when i first tried Linux. it was so new and different and understanding all the basics was daunting for a beginner. so i used to flee back to windows. one day i made my mind:enough was enough. i could not take all those spyware , malware and what not anymore. so i switched for real. i dont run windows anymore and there is nothing that can make me run it. at work everybody uses windows but i managed to get a Linux box. Mac also is solid because it has a solid kernel.with virtualization Redmond guys should be able to fix legacy problems. there is one thing i just don't understand and i haven't found anybody to provide me with a satisafactory response.here it goes: everybody knows that msft has very smart engineers like Intel , Mac , AMD , Red Hat ... do, but why can't they build a good OS? (MS office was a good one until 2007)
josvazg on September 30, 2008 at 01:15 AM
I really don't think M$, with that >90% market share, has much to worry about in the next decade. As of Vista failure, they will surely come in the rescue of their loyal user-base with Windows 7 on time. They are not stupid, they will probably make it (a bit enought) leaner & faster, and less of a nagger; the masses will love them for that. Before that, in the worst case, they may fall to a decent 80% percent market share? Is THAT SO worrying?
In the meantime, computer & tech savvy users like us will have choice. You can learn to mitigate Vista's bloatware and nags (or just live with it), go back to XP, take your savings and buy a Mac (and probably never look back) or you can enter de Linux community to probably never look back either.
But the (desktop) masses will be M$ like for ages to come. Ask anyone with a computer in Spain, they will NOT have a clue how much do their Windows and Office costs... even when many of them don't use the Windows OS that came with the PC and probably none bought it with the Office suite included. (Yes piracy helps M$ a LOT as many perceive M$ products as "gratis")
About the virtualization solutions: the problem will be drivers. The host operating system needs to support the driver for the virtual OS to be able to see it and use it. (for instance, i can use my Motorola V3 on Ubuntu thanks to a VirtualBoxed XP, but only because the USB ports are recognized and supported by Ubuntu). It can be done, but it's not trivial.
Why M$' engineers, being so smart, don't show it?
Well they are facing two problems:
1) Their user base makes them think they are the greatest, the coolest and everything they touch turns into gold. Which Vista demonstrates is false, but they probably didn't get it, anyway.
2) The marketing and company mindset does not allow for the innovation they need to be really competitive again. The development cycles are changing, and the OpenSource trend that is pushing it is just the opposite to the way M$ thinks.
Bob Robertson on September 30, 2008 at 06:31 AM
The first reason for 6 versions of VISTA was because of the EU prosecution. Microsoft had to produce an "unbundled" Windows. But instead of just shipping without a media player and etc., MS made one that wouldn't run a media player. Upgrade treadmill. $$ MS took an opportunity to create a layered system where users could get only what they need/want, and instead created a profit center. Almost like someone had a good idea, and then the marketing/sales departments got their claws into it and ruined it. Did I say Almost? I think that is _exactly_ what happened. As to the reason that MS cannot produce a non-bloated software package, it is because of the nature of bureaucracy: There are 11 layers of middle management in MS. For one "team" to talk to another "team" requires going through multiple layers of management, up and back down, with every request and answer. The MS build system is modular, but that modularity is both side to side _and_ up and down. It takes weeks before a team can know if their change messed something up for anyone else. I think this was a Joel On Software article, but I don't have the link. I note in the article and comments that y'all are pretty direct about your needs. I believe the problems you describe have an answer: Core OS simplicity: Even Apple realized that the OS itself is now a commodity. It's a cost to develop, just use an existing one. Apple chose BSD, I choose Linux. Server simplicity/reliability: A fully up-to-date server running Linux can take up as little as 100MB of disk space, and run with 256MB of RAM. That's overstating the hardware requirements, but I don't want to get into an argument about how small is small. The less overhead the OS itself has, the less that can go wrong, and everyone knows Linux systems that have run for years without rebooting. (The same can be said of BSD) UI stability: The UI that I learned UNIX on, Open-Look Window Manager, is still in development. So are many other extremely stable UI styles, or jump on the "everything and the kitchen sink" UIs that did everything VISTA was supposed to do years before VISTA was released. The choice is yours. UI wiz-bang-gosh-wow: Yes, "business" users just need to get to their applications, but there are lots of folks who want eye-candy. So install the UI you want. Beryl/Compiz has eye-candy to spare. Legacy Applications: Virtualization has been mentioned several times as an answer to legacy applications. Don't wait for Microsoft to bundle a one-size-fits-all into the next version of Windows. Virtualization already exists and works fine. I use VirtualBox, as has already been discussed, but there is plenty of variety. Need to emulate a different hardware platform altogether? QEMU. Yes, there are hardware limitations such as USB support, but millions of copies of VISTA were sold before MS had anywhere near full device support too. This is less important in a business environment where hardware tends to be standardized. Legacy Hardware: My first CD-ROM drive, connected through a SoundBlaster ISA sound card, is still supported in the latest Linux kernel. "Legacy" Windows support pales in comparison. Speaking of business: Eye candy is unimportant, while reliability and stability are paramount. With a non-proprietary system, it can be copied and installed as many times as needed on as many different users machines as needed. Licensing is a non-issue. After seeing businesses spend tons of money and time tracking Windows and Office licenses, this is a direct and immediate savings (if management can grasp the difference). Software Control: Install only what you need. F/OSS systems are made up of many different packages. Unlike Windows, it doesn't burden your system with a media player if you don't WANT a media player, or web browser, or Solitare card game. Upgrade if/when that decision is made, not at the whim of someone else. Standards: Because the F/OSS environment is not monolithic, the very reason it all works together is because of adherence to standards. There is no worry that the next version of XYZ might not be able to read the files written by XYY. Multiple vendors all read/write the same file formats as well, so if one secretary likes Abiword and another likes OpenOffice, the department that settled on Kword can still use those documents. Now think about the things you wish Microsoft would do with Windows. Very likely, it's already been done by someone else.
Bob Robertson on September 30, 2008 at 06:33 AM
My apologies. I did format to paragraphs and bullets, but all that vanished. Oh well.
paul (the unverified) on September 30, 2008 at 06:35 AM
I'm not so sure that the recent PR effort is a good thing. The Seinfeld ads failed, and almost everybody knew that concept was wide of the mark. Now this campaign comes off as though the PC guy is whining about being stereotyped. Since Redmond has dominant market share, they are apt to be stereotyped. Further, since Redmond was able to force box makers to package the OS, people never learned to understand the OS and as a result became referred to as the borg (ie, a bunch of automatons). Again, you're asking to be stereotyped if you don't choose your OS based on some degree of comparison and intellectual awareness. IMHO, you don't buy something "because everybody else uses it." And that's a direct quote from almost every winDOHs user I've met. (Hmmm, maybe more reason for being stereotyped, d'ya think?)
Personally, I can't see getting involved with a product from a company that jerks a customer around as much as Redmond does.
The Apple ads by contrast, address advantages of using their OS. (I don't think I need to review their content since it seems so many people have already seen them.)
I also don't believe the Redmond mothership is in a nosedive. I do sometimes wonder if Kollar-Kotelly (whatever the judges name is) insisted on the monopoly settlement including some measure to self-destruct, because the recent product/marketing decisions strike me as just plain stupid; almost deliberately inept.
So if m$ were smart, they'd listen to your suggestions re the OS changes and call me to help with the next ad campaign. I'm sure that will happen.
Doug-Texas on September 30, 2008 at 09:38 AM
Dude, you must be smoking crack. Windows Imminent Demise? Servers all over the world are running MS Server OSes. The PCs that run on the networks are all Windows PCs. You really think companies are gonna dump hundreds of thousands of dollars to completely switch from one OS to another? You must be one of the fools that buy into the wonderful little Mac utopia you live in. You probably actually believe the Mac commercials when they say Macs are more stable and they never crash. That is why Mac users are always waiting in line at a Mac store to get their Macs fixed. That is why thousands of Mac users send in their iPhones and iPods for reapit everyday. Macs have just as many problems and failures as ANY other os in existence. Linux included. You just do not hear about them because they do not control a major portion of the market share. Linux has kernal problems that has to be fixed all the time. that is why every other version that is released is a beta. Apple has even been in the news lately regarding security and OS issues. Even their iphones are not very secure. People are hacking into them left and right. Microsoft is not perfect. No one is. But I will be damned before I buy into a company that locks you into buying their software and hardware and locks you into using them exclusively for everything you need on your PC.
I use Vista Ultimate SP1, it it runs great. Until you actually try it, don't knock it. BTW, I have tried OSX and I can truly say, compared to XP or Vista, OSX sucks hard.
Wake up and actually read some valid information instead of believeing everything Apple tells you to believe.
Tom on September 30, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Do Both:
I run LINUX and Virtualize, Vista, XP, 2000, 98 and everything in between on VMWARE Server for free. Moreover, I agree that Vista offers no value over XP other than 8 times the resources.
Virtualize XP and use it whenever you absolutely need Windows. For most things LINUX does the job just fine without the hassle of viruses ad-ware and bloat ware.
Tom on September 30, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Do Both:
I run LINUX and Virtualize, Vista, XP, 2000, 98 and everything in between on VMWARE Server for free. Moreover, I agree that Vista offers no value over XP other than 8 times the resources.
Virtualize XP and use it whenever you absolutely need Windows. For most things LINUX does the job just fine without the hassle of viruses ad-ware and bloat ware.
Dan on September 30, 2008 at 03:05 PM
"Linux has kernal problems that has to be fixed all the time. that is why every other version that is released is a beta." I've read this twice and I'm still not really sure what this means. There are release candidates for each kernel but every final release is a "stable" release. The odd numbered development branch ended with 2.5 if that is what you are confused about. I suspect, from reading your post, that you've never actually used Gnu/Linux beyond booting a live-cd (if you have, that doesn't count). "Until you actually try it, don't knock it." That's good advice. You should adopt it. MSFT's marketshare isn't indicative of how healthy the corporation is. While revenue is very good, their growth is declining. Growth is what drives stock value. They have been reported but not proven to be exaggerating their earnings for years to maintain their share price. They are not crumbling, but MSFT has nowhere to go but down. Arguably, they can't even compete against themselves. Windows 7 doesn't appear to be changing that.
Steve Fogarty on September 30, 2008 at 04:13 PM
How about being able to find stuff on my local and networked drives as fast as Google finds things in China and Zimbabwe? My Google searches return results in .nothing. Yet any time I search my own drives - drives that Windows has all the time in the world to search and index - it takes five minutes or more. WTF? Is there anything more frustrating, from a user perspective, than waiting and waiting and waiting for Windows to find the same spreadsheets and photos and whatever it looks for and finds every day?
Flip on October 03, 2008 at 05:40 AM
As of April 2008, US home broadband penetration was only at 57%. That's rising a bit, but for most home users, a Live Update/Package Manager service is still a very bad idea. It's not like we can drag our desktops into the library every time we need an update or more software.
@Eric: Right, me too. Add WinRoll to your list.
@Steve: Use Google Desktop. It indexes your computer and network drives, gives you a search box and a sidebar, if you like.
g on October 03, 2008 at 10:29 AM
just make it simple and do the job with the minimum amount of backwards arsed options.
take media player for example,
media player classic plays media plainly and simply.
current versions of media player assault the user with a horrible mishmash of options, hides essential features, tries to catalog your songs when you just want to play one, is butt ugly, never works out of the box or comes with a sensible number of codecs, takes up too much screen space and won't allow you to scrub through your media
TheBigGuy1 on December 22, 2008 at 02:12 PM
I have seen and used a version of Windows 7, and for me I am not impressed...it seems like more of the same thing and after my Vista experience that has not helped my confidence at all.
I had been using a Sony Vaio Laptop with Windows Vista, and I constanty kept getting the "Blue Screen of Death" on every 3rd or 4th boot attempt. It was frustrating, and especially embarassing when in an office environment when I am trying to access my computer for files!
I then took the leap to Ubuntu Linux.....a definite HUGE improvement over Vista. Of course it took a little doing to get my peripherals to work, but at least once operational there were no crashes....at all!
Of course there was an issue of using Linux and have some of my programs that were only able to run on a windows environment.....enter VIRTUALBOX! This blows me away....I have my Linux OS, and I can now run Windows XP to run my Windows based programs virtually, such as viewing Netflix "watch instantly" over my PC, which is not available on Linux.
In short, I see Linux to be the thinking man's future. It is robust, rock stable, FREE and like a bicycle, once you learn to ride it, you are off....and hopefully off of Windows!
Peace,
CR
coach factory outlet on July 13, 2011 at 01:52 AM
That D3s is amazing and it was cool to see an "iPhone optimized clip" from the 7D