Michael Flanakin

How the Top Tech Companies Made it There

Michael Flanakin — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:54:00 GMT

If you were to ask someone on the street who the top technology company is, you'll likely get one of three answers: Apple, Google, or Microsoft. Whether you agree that these are the best technology companies or not, you have to admit these three own the broad mindshare. While I listed them alphabetically, I'd bet you'd hear them in that specific order. It all comes back to mindshare. IBM and Oracle are definitely top technology companies in the enterprise, but without a consumer focus, both are sacrificing this all-too-valuable metric. You can see how important this metric is by looking back at how technology was driven in the past. 15 years ago, technology was driven by enterprise needs. Over time, however, technology has become less expensive and more accessible, which has flipped that trend. Now, most technology trends are driven by the consumer market. But what did these three do to get that mindshare?

Ask anyone with an Apple product what they like the most or what their first impression was and they'll comment on how beautiful the device or interface is and how easy it is to use. Apple's core competence is exactly this: visual design and, to some degree, user experience.

Taking the same look at Google, first impressions are typically on simple interfaces and speedy responses. Alone, this doesn't tell us much, but if you take a deeper look, you see that Google is driven by algorithms. After all, search and advertising can only succeed with solid algorithms. This is Google's core competence: engineering.

To put it simply, Apple and Google represent the art and science of technology. As such, those are the crowds they attract. Apple attracts artists and creative professionals and Google attracts engineers and hard-core geeks. This is the key to both companies' success -- a targeted audience.

Having a targeted audience allows these companies to build precise, unambiguous experiences aimed at a specific type of user (or persona). You might say that neither Apple nor Google can do this because their products are used by a wide range of users. That's very true, but just because you target a specific persona, that doesn't mean your user base will never grow beyond that. In fact, it's just the opposite. By targeting a specific persona, you're able to focus your efforts and not only meet, but exceed that persona's expectations because you truly understand what their needs and goals are. With this, you're affording yourself the primary key to product success: passionate users.

Take a look back at the iPhone's debut. Were people not passionate about its sexy interface? Of course they were. And that passion was a virus that spread like a pyramid scheme. Google had the same effect, albeit much slower.

When Google first launched their search engine in the late 1990's, there weren't too many people using it. Yahoo was the most popular search engine at the time, with it's gaudy interface, attempting to be everything to everyone. Perhaps the biggest interaction mistake Yahoo made was attempting to follow the mythical 3-click rule, where users "must" be able to get to any feature within 3 clicks, or they will stop trying. I don't want to get into it here, but this is completely wrong. The way Google succeeded was by getting all the crap out of the way. By focusing on finding what you want, Google attracted geeks -- and a lot of them. Geeks told other geeks who told their family and friends and before you know it, less than 5 years later, Google was the #1 game in town -- all because they drove passion in a small subset of possible users. Of course, passion alone isn't going to earn you a multi-billion dollar business, but passion in the hearts and minds of the right audience can. Passion can also be dangerous.

If you're reading this, you're probably well aware of the stigma of Windows Vista. It's the worst operating system in the world, right? Not so, but the passionate few who did have bad experiences sure did let everyone know. As with the passion of the iPhone and Google search users, Vista haters shouted it out, loud and proud. But I'm not here to defend Windows Vista; I want to show you the value and impact of passion. Speaking of which, if Apple is #1 in the hearts and minds of artists and Google fills that spot for engineers, where does Microsoft fit in?

We can all agree that Microsoft isn't known for its superb aesthetics or engineering prowess, but it is good at both. And, when it comes to these three companies, Microsoft is arguably second in both areas, despite the fact that neither artists nor engineers will accept or admit it. Don't get me wrong, there have been some major blunders on boht fronts, but this is exactly my point. By not excelling in the art or science of technology, Microsoft is taking a back seat to both Apple and Google. When it comes to end-to-end user experience, Apple has the most mindshare, as I mentioned before; but I'd argue that Microsoft is second in this game. Yes, Google does have some wins in this space, but Google is nowhere near as dedicated to or capable of delivering the end-to-end user experience Microsoft is -- just look at Bing and Windows Phone. Admittedly, Microsoft has only started showing its ability in this space over the past few years. On the other side, Google drives mindshare for technology engineering; but once again, Microsoft comes in second. I can cite examples of why Apple sucks at engineering and Google can't quite cut it with end-to-end user experience, but I want to focus on the culmination of all this.

Microsoft has a tendency to attract people who want both beauty and brains; people who understand that beauty alone will get you nowhere and brains alone will leave you as exactly that -- alone. Together, beauty and brains will reach an even broader audience. This is the 80% Microsoft is known for targeting (for better or worse), which is exacly why Microsoft is as popular as it is. Everyone like to look at pretty pictures or solve problems .6825 seconds faster than the next guy, but the vast majority of the populations doesn't care -- as long as they can figure it out and their problem gets solved, they're happy. Let's face it, the best interface is no interface. If human beings could achieve their goals without interacting with your product, they would. Your product is a necessary evil.

Microsoft hasn't been successful by purely being a runner-up, tho. Microsoft has their own niche: developers. I know of absolutely no company that has ever had the ability to drive passion in developers as much as Microsoft has. Sure, iPhone development has seen a great boon, but that was forced (on Apple) and it wasn't because Apple had a great development platform; it was because users were flocking to the product. Microsoft has continued to deliver compelling platforms for developers to take advantage of year after year. This is only heightenedby the fact that Microsoft's partner ecosystem is fiscally 10 times the size of Microsoft itself. Said another way, partners make $10 for every $1 Microsoft earns. Given Microsoft's gross earnings, that's a huge market. I'd say that's definitely something to be passionate about.

While having 80% of the market sounds outstanding, this group is quite fickle and has no allegiences. They aren't opting out of the artistic and scientific approaches; they just don't care. So what drives them? Each of us has something inside that motivates us. If you want to be successful, you need to start with a core demographic, the primary persona you want to target. Remember that, by meeting everyone's needs, you meet no one's needs. This may seem counter-intuitive, but it's been proven time and time again. If you target a specific type of user, you're giving your primary users an opportunity to get passionate. There's no mathematical formula to cultivate passion -- if there was, Google would've figured it out by now -- but it all starts with targeted experiences. If you want to win in your market, drive passion.

To bring this back to those top 3 companies, Apple and Google are both fairly stuck in their ways. Both companies have art and science built into their DNA. I don't expect to see either company change. Microosft, on the other hand, has an immense amount to learn and I think they're on their way to correcting those. I can't say I expect Microsoft to surpass Apple in artistry or Google in engineering anytime soon; but I do expect Microsoft to give both companies a run for their money. We've already seen Apple reacting to Windows Phone 7 and Google reacting to Bing. As slow as the company is, Microsoft is a huge innovator. We've seen it in the past and I suspect the next 12 months will be full of opportunities for history to repeat itself as Kinect, Windows Phone 7, and IE9 come to fruition. Okay, there's some wishful thinking in that last one, but each of these platforms has developers chomping at the bit, eagerly awaiting their release. And, with each of these combining best-of-breed user experiences with solid, top-notch engineering, Microsoft is giving us something to be passionate about -- on all three screens (phone, computer, and TV), no less.

For the developers out there, how about your products? How are you driving passion in your users? For everyone else, what makes you passionate?

Interesting First Impressions with the IE9 Preview

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:27:00 GMT

It's been almost a year since my plea to the IE team. Windows 7 has rocked, Office 2010 is looking very nice, and, most recently, Windows Phone 7 Series has amazed the world. All these great things coming together are really putting pressure on the IE team to deliver something revolutionary. Back in Nov 2009, the team talked about the tremendous performance improvements, sub-pixel text rendering, and HTML5/CSS3 support. All-in-all, there was a quick burst of information and buzz around what IE9 could become, but then it died off very quickly. I admit, I was quite skeptical -- and still am -- but at least it showed the team is heading in the right direction. In what seems to be the IE team's typical process, silence happened and annoyance returned.

Today, Microsoft announced the release of an early IE9 developer preview. I was pretty excited about this, since I've been waiting for it since they first started talking about IE9 in November -- well, maybe since IE8 was released without some of the big features I was hoping for. Nonetheless, I was grounded pretty quickly. For better or worse, there are some interesting things that came out of the preview.

1. Uhh, What's This Window?

I'm pretty willy-nilly with new software. Not too smart, but whatever :-P I installed the preview and expected magic. As it installed, I started closing other IE8 windows. All of a sudden, a new Window popped up. "Woo-hoo, it's done! IE9, here I come!" Then I noticed I left one IE8 window open. I switched over to close it and hesitated -- "Why is there an IE8 window still open?" I switched back to the new IE9 window and thought, uhh, this isn't a browser. There's no back button; no address bar; nothing. "Ah, maybe it's just a 'Welcome to IE9' dialog before the IE9 greatness kicks in!" I close the IE8 window, open another with the pinned icon on my taskbar. "Uhh, nothing changed." *Help > About...* Still IE8. WTF!? I guess this is more of a literal "preview" than I thought. No browser; just a chance to see how their pre-built tests work. Meh.

2. The Tests Work... Mostly

I've said it before and I'll say it again, just being part of the game isn't going to fly. And, if this is all the IE team has to show, I'm not impressed. Don't get me wrong, I love everything they show, from performance to sub-pixel text rendering -- seriously, this isn't something to scoff at, it's a very noteworthy improvement for any browser -- to all the HTML and CSS improvements. But it's not enough. Heck, the "Falling Balls" example didn't even work. I really want to bash the performance improvements. I even wrote this paragraph a few different ways to express my disapproval in different ways, but it all comes down to this: you won't realize how drastic the improvements are until you see IE8 and IE9 running side-by-side. The Flying Images example seems obvious, when you see it in IE9, but when you go back and watch it in IE8, you think, "Is this seriously what I'm putting up with today!? I feel lied to; cheated. How dare you, IE team; how dare you!" With all that said -- and seriously, the perf improvement is tremendous -- I'm still not happy (here's where my desire to bash performance comes in). While you definitely notice that aspects of performance have improved, the perceived performance really sucks. It's not the page loading that I'm talking about, tho; it's the standard page interaction that's defunct. Even clicking some of the links used by the examples were ridiculously buggy. I guess there's a reason they called it a "developer preview"... wait, that doesn't say "developer," it says "platform"...

3. "Platform Preview"

In an effort to find the hidden navigation controls, I scoured the lifeless window edges. The best I could find was the Page > Open... menu option. Well, at least that's a way to test out other pages. I figured, what better way to test out the new browser than to write a blog post. Let me just tell you that I'm dying here. I mentioned the perceived performance sucks already. Try typing in this thing. I feel like I'm clawing my eyes out -- and I'm talking about with freshly trimmed fingernails. You know what I'm talking about, when you trim your fingernails down to the nub and putting even the slightest pressure on them hurts. Now, try to claw your eyes out with that. That's why I feel like I'm doing right now. Every character is painful. *Ouch, oooh, ouch...*

Okay, I'm exaggerating; but it is painful. But, now that I'm able to get past the examples, I'm realizing I have two versions of IE installed. Hmm... very interesting. Remember the days when IE was a crucial part of Windows and couldn't be unbundled? Well, they seem to have figured out how to install a new rendering engine without touching the old one, hidden deep in the innards of Windows. Of course, they did introduce the ability to completely uninstall IE in Windows 7, so maybe that's a moot point nowadays. Either way, this is a first for IE, as far as I know. Then it hit me... "platform preview." Are they saying something with that? Are we talking about a rendering engine completely detached from the Windows desktop OS?

4. IE9 on Windows Phone?

In the original Windows Phone 7 Series announcement at Mobile World Congress 2010, Joe Belfiore commented that the phone is more than just the Mobile IE we see in Windows Mobile 6.5 and its predecessors. He said it came from the desktop browser code-base. This alone doesn't mean much, but when he called out the sub-pixel text rendering, my mind started adding things up. Is this IE9 on Windows Phone!? Nobody has said that, but you have to wonder. I've read that Windows Phone 7 Series is based on IE7 with some back-ported features from IE8, but that doesn't really make sense, when you consider that sub-pixel rendering is only coming in the next version of the browser. I still have to wonder about this. It doesn't make sense to back-port that feature two versions. Maybe it's IE8 with that one feature back-ported, but maybe it's IE9. If that's the case, IE9 will need to be on a hyperactive beta period and, as I mentioned before, they definitely aren't close to being done, yet, and I'm admittedly not confident they even know how to do that.

5. Where's the Navigation?

I really want to get back to the preview. I'm still annoyed at the fact that I have to get to sites in a hacky way. Why would the IE team do that!? Do they not want us to use the browser? That can't be it. Maybe they didn't have time to finish out the preview and just crammed some stuff together to make the Mix10 keynote. Maybe, but I doubt it. I didn't notice this at first, but the menu options aren't standard. Specifically, there's a "Page" menu instead of a "File" menu. Perhaps I'm reading into this too much, but "Page" sounds like more of a ribbon tab than a menu option. Maybe the reason we're getting such a scaled-back browser is because the old chrome isn't there anymore -- we could be getting the first ribbon-based browser. I'm very excited about this possibility. At the same time, I can't ignore the fact that this will be a very touchie UI, given the ever-popular tab-based browser. IE7 brought me back from Firefox because the UI was slim and just looked and felt more professional. IE9 with a ribbon done right -- extra focus on "done right" -- could seriously bring people back to IE. At the same time, it's an opening for haters to complain about the ribbon. I whole-heartedly believe the ribbon interface is demonstrably better than menu-based interfaces. So much so that, if I had my way, I'd never use another menu-based interface again. I'm not saying the ribbon is the way to go in every case, but I don't know why a traditional menu would ever be the "right" experience. It just isn't optimal.

With all that said, maybe the ribbon isn't the IE team's target. Maybe they've put a lot of thought into how users should be interacting with the browser. In either case, I welcome the change. Chrome took an interesting move with minimization, but I don't think it was drastic enough. Google played it safe with Chrome. Microsoft's not afraid of taking big risks when it comes to user experience -- just look at Office 2007, Windows Phone 7 Series, and even Visual Studio 2010 to a lesser degree.

No matter what happens, I'll be eagerly awaiting either the next preview/beta. At the same time, I'm not holding my breath. The IE team has a lot to prove with respect to being agile and, if they really are creating a new UI, that'll just complicate things more. I'd like to say we'll see something by the end of June, but who knows with that team. All I can say is, IE team, prove me wrong; please, prove me wrong!

A Plea for IE

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 02:28:00 GMT

Microsoft is out to prove a point with Windows 7. I can see the message clearly: "See, we can deliver on time; and earlier than most expected. And to top it all off, we did so without drastically changing the OS. That 'polished' OS you're looking at... yeah, it's Vista; 'Vista-point-1' to be exact. Sure, we tweaked it; but that's just to prove another point: Microsoft software isn't about bloat." I could probably go on for a while, but the signs are all there. Sinofsky has done a great job taking the Windows team under his wing. I've been very happy with some of the decisions they've made. As a matter of fact, I'm hoping to see some of the same changes on other fronts. Enter Internet Explorer.

IE8 is a big flop in my book. Don't get me wrong, it's my default browser and I love the enhancements; but it's just hiding the real, underlying problem: the foundation. I apologize for the analogy, but you can only mold a pile of crap so many ways before it just starts falling apart. Arguably, the same can be said about Windows, but Windows 7 has really given it a refresh. It's hard to explain how much better Windows 7 feels. I have to say I'd liken it to the first day I got Windows Vista, to be honest; but the key differentiator there is that I had quality hardware that was up to the challenge and no legacy software or devices to be concerned with. I'm not the "normal" user, of course, and I feel bad for those who had bad experiences. It's not because the software is bad, it's because your circumstances around which you experienced it were wrong. Not that Microsoft isn't to blame, tho; but I'm getting way off topic. It's time for a major change with IE.

I remember seeing some early concepts around IE8. At first glance, I was confused at a few of the ideas -- I'm thinking of one in particular -- but after I paused to really mull it over, it hit me. The power users would have at their fingertips would be astounding. There's a common root to the booming growth of Google and Firefox. This is exactly what Microsoft would've seen with this feature. Guess what: that feature never saw the light of day. As a matter of fact, I don't even know that it made it past that slide deck. Admittedly, the idea was rough, but it had some real potential. What's funny is that I just read something about the same concept being applied to another browser. *sigh*

Before IE8 beta 1 hit the streets, I saw another slide deck about what would be included in IE8 and 9. At first, I was excited, but it didn't take long for that to wear off. I actually began to question some of the decisions. There was (once again) one feature loved, but then I started to wonder if it even made sense. Depending on whether the team takes a left or a right out the gate will be the deciding factor for that feature... if it's still even a possibility. IE8 was pushed back so much that the IE9 time frame and feature set is completely out of the picture for what I saw. It's too bad; I was looking forward to a few quick revs. At the same time, this could be perfect timing.

Windows 7 is on the way, with rumors of April and May release candidates culminating in a June, July, August, September, October, November, or January final release date. It's pretty clear nobody has a good clue of the actual release date, but there is one constant in all the confusion: simplicity and performance are the two driving tenets in Windows 7. These two factors are huge for usability and, furthermore, perceptions. So, when I think about what to expect in IE9, I'm looking for both of these: simplicity and speed. IE8 is a dog on some machines. We've seen JavaScript benchmarks and "everyday use" benchmarks that all tell us different things, but it all comes down to our individual experiences... and perceptions. For IE to be a contendor, it needs to clean up its act. I want a sleek, sexy browser. It's not Firefox; it's not Chrome; and it sure as hell isn't Safari or Opera. I'm not saying each isn't functional, I'm just saying there's a lot to be desired.

Opera's doing it's thing, although I'm not sure why it even bothers; Apple's giving Safari on Windows a go, but not doing well; Google's got juice, but I don't think they have the right talent-mix to succeed; and Firefox is leading the pack against IE, but hasn't really made any significant innovations and is growing more by perception than anything. Microsoft (read: IE team), the browser market is yours to lose [which you're doing]; but it's also yours to dominate. Take a step back. Review the history books. There is one constant in what drives the up-and-comers of today. See that and feed into it. The world is asking for simplicity, speed, and all-around usability. IE8 isn't the answer. IE9 could be. You can do better. I know it; you know it.

Windows 7 RC Enhancements

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:57:00 GMT

Since the debut of Windows 7, there's been a lot of talk about whether or not Microsoft would listen to feedback from the field. This sounds odd, but the question is a valid one, due to how Steve Sinofsky is running this release of Windows. The major departure from past releases is that the Windows team isn't introducing features into the build until they're "done." Sure, there may be some small issues, but nothing like what we saw in the pre-release versions of Vista or XP. This, along with only 2 pre-release versions of the OS making it out to the field -- beta and release candidate -- will make anyone question how much will really change between the beta and official release. Well, the Engineering 7 blog lets us know about 36 things we'll see in the release candidate based on feedback from the beta. This is very refreshing, even if a number of them are qute trivial.

Task Switcher (Alt+Tab) now with Aero peek -- excellent enhancement to really bring focus to the app you're thinking about switching to
Win+# will open or launch, not just launch -- I'm very excited about this one; I'll finally have a Win+1 shortcut to open my most important window: PowerShell
Apps wanting your attention will be more obvious
Dragging a file onto an app on the taskbar will now open the file in the app
25-40% more icons will fit on the taskbar before scrolling
Clearer mapping of what app thumbnails are related to in the taskbar
Newly installed programs will show up at the bottom of the start menu
Increased the number of items in the taskbar app's context menu (aka jump list)
More flexibility when pinning items to an app's jump list
Separation of desktop icons and gadgets
Aero peek now touch-enabled
Multi-touch capabilities added to the virtual keyboard to make it more realistic
Summon the context menu with a 2 fingers -- this isn't quite as simple as it could be, but there are some reasons why a 2-finger tap isn't viable
Touch enhancements to select and drag/drop content
Simplified networking options in system tray and return of the connected-but-no-internet indicator
User Account Control (UAC) tweaks
Auto-lock a machine without applying a screensaver
Return of the high performance power option from the system tray
Clearer communication about preview vs. saved theme changes
Reliability enhancements to Windows Media Player for internet radio
Digital camcorder/camera video playback improvements
Cleaner "now playing" view in Windows Media Player
Content that Windows Media Player cannot play won't show up in the library -- this might be confusing to some, but it sounds like a good option; I'd probably opt for a dimmed color and icon depicting its unplayable status
Changed Windows Media Player to resume playback of content after returning from sleep
Introduction of Windows Media Player sync relationships dialog will be reverted -- classic case of why betas are important
Easier, quicker access to advanced playback settings in Windows Media Player
Windows Media Player's jump list now includes content launced from outside of WMP
Worked with hardware vendors to make it easier to get more devices to support Device Stage -- if you don't know what Device Stage is (I didn't), watch this
Improved headphone experience
Increased audio reliability
Improved Windows Explorer header to enhance new "libraries" capability
Drag and drop enhancements when dealing with libraries
Win+E was opening libraries, but will return to open My Computer, as it does today -- I'm glad to see this because I haven't found a use for libraries, yet
Added FAT32 support for libraries
Arrangement view enhancements for libraries
Performance enhancements abound

There are really only 4 of these that I'm looking forward to, but it's still a surprisingly large list. I'm looking forward to the RC. Rumor has it we'll see a public release in April. Part of me expects it to be sooner, but I have no idea.

Lessons Learned from the Great Zune Massacre

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:11:00 GMT

I was thinking about the Dec 31, 2008 debacle Zune went thru, where the devices didn't work for a 24 hr period. If you didn't hear about it, the problem was due to a device driver, which wasn't controlled by Microsoft. This is exactly the problem Microsoft has to deal with: crappy hardware vendors. I remember the sad, sad day I found out the Zune was built using Toshiba hardware. I have hoped so much that this would change, but it hasn't, yet... yet. I say that, not knowing of things to come, but hoping that Microsoft will realize the err in its ways. Microsoft should take tighter control over hardware by using quality hardware vendors. Hell, the Zune issue is nothing compared to the red ring of death issues the Xbox faces. I don't know anything about the Xbox hardware, tho, so I can't say much about that. Heck, Microsoft can't either, considering they haven't fixed the problem yet, as far as I know. I'd like to see Microsoft either form a division focused on delivering great hardware -- like phones, Zunes, Xboxes, desktops, and laptops -- or pony up and buy a company. There has been a lot of speculation to that effect with the purchase of Danger in early 2008, but Microsoft has claimed the "Zune Phone" won't happen. That doesn't stop the rumors from piling up, tho. All I can say is that, if my vote was worth anything, I'd be voting for Lenovo. I've purchased 2 and am about to get another. I've even thought about replacing my desktop with a Lenovo. What's even better, tho, is the idea of having a Lenovo phone. As much as I like my HTC Touch Pro (AT&T Fuze) -- minus the crap AT&T does to it, that is -- my love affair with Lenovo laptops really has me lusting after their new phone. If only it'd make it to the US... along with the HTC Touch HD, which I still want. All this really boils down to one question, in my mind: Will Microsoft reconsider a higher level of control after dealing with one problem after another from hardware vendors? I kind of doubt it, but I'll keep hope alive.

2008: Year of the Cloud

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:23:00 GMT

Every year, there's one underlying theme that seems to be pushed in the technology arena more than anything. This year, I feel like it's the year of the cloud. The last time I did this was five years ago, so I'll have to back-fill a few years, but here are the themes I've noticed over the past 11 years.

2008: Year of the Cloud
2007: Year of User Experience
2006: Year of AJAX/Web 2.0
2005: Year of SaaS
2004: Year of Offshore Outsourcing
2003: Year of the Architect
2002: Year of Web Services
2001: Year of XML/.NET
2000: Year of Enterprise Java
1999: Year of Linux
1998: Year of the Web

We've been approaching "the year of the cloud" for a while, now. You can actually look back to 1998, when the web started to really catch on. A few years later, as Java started to build momentum and then .NET hit the scenes, which is when XML as a standard communication language started to catch on. Also tied to the .NET release was a huge push for web services. As this was more and more successful, service-oriented architecture (SOA) started to boom. In my mind, that was a big boon to the outsourcing trends, which have seemingly quieted down a bit, but not completely. SOA also led to the software as a service (SaaS) trend, which triggered Microsoft's software plus services (S+S) push, but that was more of a side story. With everything moving to the web, backed by [typically open] services, asynchronous Javascript and XML (AJAX) was the next big push. This was tied to the "Web 2.0" moniker, which I'd argue wasn't quite what Tim Berners-Lee intended. Either way, this led to the big push for better user experiences, which many people confuse with user interface design. The Web 2.0 push also kept the industry on its web focus, which is where we are left today.

It's easy to look back and see how we got here. Trends show that architectural changes typically take two or three years to gain momentum in the community, so we'll probably have a couple of years before the next major architecture peaks. The trend towards distributed computing has grown more and more, but I have a feeling things are going to start coming back a little. We've been pushing out to the web for a lot of reasons; one of which is the rise of the Mac. What we've been losing out on, however, is the power of the desktop. I see the S+S push to continue, but more as an underlying theme than a strong focus. Services will continue to be the foundation, maintaining the importance of cloud computing, but the desktop will be where the processing occurs. I see Silverlight proving a huge success, which will eventually bring .NET to the Mac. This will probably bring Novell and Microsoft a little closer together, with respect to Microsoft's relationship with Mono, but this may simply be a change in focus for Mono. Oh, and when I say, "bring .NET to the Mac," I'm not talking about the scaled-down version in Silverlight. I'm talking about the real deal. I see WPF and Silverlight merging along with the smart client architecture built into .NET today. This will take more than a few years, but it seems to be inevitable. Most likely, by the time all this happens, multi-core will be a way of life, as opposed to the we-should-be-thinking-about-threading thoughts most developers have today. Armed with a strong multi-threaded foundation, which is easy to use, the combined WPF/Silverlight presentation tier will quickly overtake Flash and Air. By this time, we should also start to see more integration into our everyday lives...

Okay, I'm probably getting a little out of hand here. If I go much further, we're going to be on the USS Enterprise, so I'll stop while I'm ahead. I'll just leave it at, it'll be interesting to see what's next. My money's on the power of the desktop, which we've lost over the past 10 years.

IE 8 Release Timeline

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:27:00 GMT

Yesterday, the IE team posted a comment about what's next for IE8. I didn't get much out of this except for the fact that the next set of bits will be available in early 2009 and will include all the major enhancements, which includes feature adds and performance tweaks -- and let's hope they're significant because IE8b2 is slower than IE7 for me. It sounds like this next release will be a release candidate (RC), but that statement was very non-commital, so it may end up being beta 3. Either way, it sounds like this next one will be the last pre-release before the final version. There's still no word on when that will be, but with speculation that Windows 7 will be out in late 2009, it would make a lot of sense to see it just a little earlier than that release, so it's bundled with the new OS.

I won't confirm or deny anything about what I've heard about the Windows 7 release, but IE8 has most definitely slipped past internal deadlines. I know the team has thought about IE9, but as we drive past one milestone after another for IE8, there's no telling when that'll happen -- not that I don't have a guess I can't say I'm surprised, tho. The timelines I saw for IE8 and 9 were very ambitious; especially, when you consider how long it took IE7 to come to market. Of course, that comes more from neglect than anything. I should say that those timelines were very rough and only touched on some high level things to look forward to. What's surprised me with IE8 so far is that it's missing one of the things I could swear I heard about over a year ago. Maybe it was pushed back -- although, I didn't see it in the IE9 slide deck -- or maybe I'm just crazy. Either way, I hope it sees the light of day, because it sounded extremely exciting from a productivity standpoint.

Google Apps vs. OpenOffice

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:41:00 GMT

In the past, many have talked about the desktop vs. cloud wars -- is it really a "war?" -- by comparing productivity suites like Microsoft Office and Google Apps. People have had a lot of speculation about what web apps are capable of and what is truly needed when it comes to admittedly bloated apps, like Microsoft Word; but this is the first time I think we've seen two "friendly" competitors go head-to-head: Google Apps and OpenOffice. I say, "friendly," but use that term relatively loosly. Google is very open source friendly and some may say they operate in the spirit of open source, but there's a big difference between free and "open source." Either way, the results aren't too surprising: Google Apps gets spanked. While nobody has ever said Google Apps was better than Microsoft Office, it's a pretty well known fact that Microsoft Office beats out OpenOffice. Based on the transitive property of inequality, that pretty much says Microsoft Office kicks the livin' hell out of Google Apps. And, with Office Web Access just around the corner, that's pretty much game, set, match on Google Apps. I think Paul Thorrott said it best when he talked about the "small" web-based rich text editor in Office Live and how it was better than what Google Apps had to offer.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against web-based apps. I actually think we're a long way away from hitting the roof of what the web has to offer... and that's just the current incarnation. The platform itself needs another rev or two, tho. In the meantime, I'm excited to see what Google will come back with. We haven't seen Google react to competition much, other than speeding past very little, very sparse competition at 100 miles an hour. Google has vision, but Microsoft is one fierce competitor. The sleeping giant doesn't sleep for long.

Should Windows 7 be Windows 6.1?

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:30:00 GMT

When I first heard that the next version of Windows was going to be Windows "7" -- back when that was just a codename -- I thought, "What? Wait... no!" I don't have a holistic problem with the number. My problem is more with what "Windows 7" was really supposed to be based on early talks. The chatter led me to believe it was going to be a pretty drastic change from where we are today, in the Windows world. I envisioned some drastic changes from the ground up. Then, after a few months, there was talk about the next version of Windows being codenamed Windows "7." Don't get me wrong, I'm as excited about the OS as the next guy, but it just doesn't feel like a major release. The name and version number seem to be more about correcting people's invalid perceptions about the state of Windows than actually being a major version jump. Heck, Microsoft has even waffled on whether this is a major vs. minor release. That still seems more about PR, tho.

If that wasn't enough, there's one thing that really seems to be the final "nail" in the coffin to me: Windows Server 2008 R2 will coincide with Windows 7. An "R2" release, is essentially a major service pack with a couple features thrown in. At least that's my opinion. That's been turned on it's head with the .NET 3.5 and Visual Studio 2008 SP1 of late, but historically, that's how it's worked. Above all, an "R2" release is not a major release. Of course, this isn't the first time Microsoft has fallen into the version number debacle.

Ads, Ads, Ads

Michael Flanakin — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:34:00 GMT

What's wrong with Microsoft advertising? We all know they have an issue, but not all of us know what they're capable of. Microsoft has some truly hilarious videos they share internally and at conferences, but they don't always make it out to see the light of day. It's too bad, because that would go a long way. These videos aren't about selling products, they're simply about having fun. That's kind of what the Apple switch ads are, but what's annoying about those ads is that they're far from truthful, in most cases, and aren't about what's good in Mac. I can only remember one of two dozen or so ads that even talks about features of the Mac. Those ads are more about spreading FUD than truth... albeit in a humorous manner. You won't see this kind of ad campaign from Microsoft. Microsoft has a policy not to talk about how other products aren't as good as theirs. Instead, we talk about the strengths of Microsoft's product line.

I will say the Gates+Seinfeld ads (1, 2) threw me off -- like they did most people, it seems -- but I've also heard a lot of people enjoying them. Sure, it didn't make anyone run out to buy a new computer, but I don't think that was the purpose. I can only assume the purpose was to entertain and create some buzz. That's exactly what happened. I have no idea why they stopped after 2 ads, tho. Switching it up to the "I'm a PC" campaign was very awkward. Don't get me wrong, I like the ads; I just wanted to see where the other ads were going. This is all too familiar to me, considering the number of TV series I've watched that were mysteriously cancelled in mid-season. I was curious where they were going and hope they aren't done, yet. All I can do is assume they're trying to build up anticipation for a miraculous return. I just hope the break isn't too long, because people will forget. We have lives; we move on.

On an old episode of This Week in Tech, there was a discussion about Microsoft's ad campaign. I remember it because one person essentially likened the Apple switch and "I'm a PC" campaigns to a high school bully (Apple) stuffing a geeky kid (Microsoft, or, the "PC") into a locker. Actually, he phrased it as, "stop hitting me, stop hitting me," speaking to the "I'm a PC" ads in response to the switch ads. I totally agree. I don't think that's what the ads were supposed to mean, but that is exactly what they look like. I say all this, but I do like the ads. They show the diversity of Windows users.

With all that, I wish Microsoft would bring it down to a human level, which is what Google does. I recently saw a video about Google 411 and thought it was great. I just don't know why Microsoft can't do things like this. We have some great talent within the company -- very creative and innovative people that want there to be a better view of the company, but there's not much we can do, it seems. It's a sad state for ad agencies, if they can't come up with better concepts.

Microsoft += RIM?? Doubt It

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:36:00 GMT

I'm not sure I can buy into this, but supposedly, Microsoft is in talks with RIM (owner of Blackberry) for a potential buy-out. I have to assume this would be riddled with regulatory issues, considering both companies are in the phone business. The key difference is that Microsoft doesn't deal with operations and RIM does. I wouldn't be suprised if there was a 3-way deal, where Microsoft got the device and software and some third party got the operations side of it. I don't know much (read: anything) about their ops, but I'd have to imagine any provider would love this deal.

Hindsight on Foresight

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 01:21:00 GMT

Nothing new here. After reading another tidbit on the latest 120 GB Zunes, I remembered an old post I had. Not that big of a deal, but I thought it was interesting to see my prediction come to light.

Retrospectiva en Previsión

En Español

No hay nada nuevo aquí. Después de leer otro comentario acerca de la 120 GB Zunes, me acordé un puesto que escribí. El puesto no es muy importante, pero pensé que era interesante que mi predicción se hizo realidad.

Want to Buy Surface?

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:24:00 GMT

Microsoft has officially posted a Surface order form. Not quite the user friendly experience I had hoped for, but I can't say I'm surprised. The order form is split into three sections: commercial hardware, development hardware and software, and services, which includes installation, maintenance, warranty, and shipping costs.

Commercial Hardware: $12,500
Development Hardware & Software: $15,000

I have to say I was surprised to see the dev version being more than the unit itself. I guess I say this because I heard there are local development tools you'll install on a development machine, not a Surface machine. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. It'll be interesting to see if/how this takes off. I did get to play with a unit last month, but haven't had a chance to really post my thoughts. They're popping up all over the place, tho, so I think more and more people will be getting a chance to play with them.

Speaking of which, if you're in the San Jose area and/or plan on going to the IDesign WCF Master Class in October, I will most likely be showing it to some people then. That's assuming the unit is still there, but I'm sure it will be. I just hope they put some more apps on it. It'd be nice to see something new.

To summarize my experience on it, I'd say that it was nice, but there's still something left to be desired. There's a lot of potential, tho. One of the biggest things is going to be showing people how they can use it. Some people have the vision it takes to see how this will enhance their apps, but others need to see something a little closer to what they're doing to get that understanding. I do think this is going to be a great platform, tho. We just need to see lower costs, a great (not good, but great) API, and a more accessible API. If this remains a niche, I don't see it going far. This is something Microsoft needs to make every developer feel like s/he has access to. Unfortunately, that may take ~3-5 years.

Testing Custom Code Analysis Rules

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:55:00 GMT

Over the years, I've been asked to put together coding standards again and again. The nice thing about this is that it enables me to pull out the old docs and touch them up a little. A year or two ago, I heard something that made a lot of sense: developers never really read coding standards and, even if they do, they don't usually adopt them. Let's face it, if you don't adopt a standard as your own, you're not going to use it. The only way to ensure the standard is applied is to catch the problem before it gets checked in. I tried a VS add-in that attempted to do this as you type, but it wasn't quite as extensive as I want, but I grabbed onto the concept. For the past year, I've been wanting to start this and have finally decided to do it.

As I sat down and started to investigate writing custom code analysis rules, I asked myself how I was going to validate them. After hacking away at one approach after another, I started to realize I wasn't going to get very far. Apparently, with the latest releases of Visual Studio and FxCop, there's no way to create the objects used to represent code. After talking to the product team, the official position seems to be that, since custom rules aren't "officially supported," they're not going to support their testability. I'm not sure who made this decision, but I think it's a bad one. Of course, I say this without knowing their plans. Well, not completely, anyway.

It's not all bad news, however. It turns out there are hopes to start officially supporting custom code analysis rules in the next major release, Visual Studio 10. Nothing's being promised at this point, it's just something the team would like to deliver. I should also say that the upcoming Rosario release isn't the major release I'm referring to. I'm expecting Rosario to be a 9.1 release that will probably hit the streets in early 2009. That's a guess, tho. If that's true, the VS 10 release probably wouldn't be until 2011. All I can really say about it is that it'll be a very exciting release. I can't wait to get my hands on a beta. Speaking of which, some of the goals they have for the product will make beta testing much much easier... I'm talking about a hugely evolutionary change, if not revolutionary, considering where the product is today. That's all I can really say, tho.

Back to the point, since there's no realy testability of the code analysis framework, I decided to create my own object model. The part I'm missing, obviously, is the factory logic that converts code analysis types to my types. I'm hesitant about this approach, but it's working so far. Hopefully, I'll have something to deliver soon. I keep bouncing around, tho, so at this point, I want to deliver a release with only naming conventions. That release is mostly complete, I just need to get approval for a distribution mechanism. If I don't get that soon, I'll just release it on my site.

So Long, Click to Activate

Michael Flanakin — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:27:00 GMT

At long last the "click to activate" message will be going away in IE. This was brought about because of a much debated lawsuit Eolas filed against Microsoft for patent infringement. Despite having support from the W3C to prove prior art, Microsoft still lost and had to change IE and pay millions to the company. These things are ridiculous. I'm not against software patents, but stuff like this annoys me. Seriously, how long was IE around with ActiveX before Eolas filed the lawsuit in 2004? It's not like the browser just snuck up on everyone. Anyway, I'm glad to see it go. Good riddance. Now IE is that much more sexy

El Titulo en Español

En Español

Finalmente, el "clic para activar" mensaje de IE desaparecerá. El mensaje fue creado porque el mucho discutió pleito de Eolas contra Microsoft para el incumplimiento de patente. A pesar de tener ayuda del W3C para probar arte anterior, Microsoft perdió y tuvo que cambiar el IE y pagar millones. Estas cosas son ridículas. No soy contra patentes de programas de computadoras, pero la situación me molesta. ¿Cuantos años IE tiene con ActiveX antes del pleito de Eolas en 2004? IE no hizo furtivamente para arriba en cada uno. Estoy alegre verlo ir. Buena liberación. Ahora el IE es que mucho más atractivo

Latest on Windows 7

Michael Flanakin — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:24:00 GMT

There's been a lot that's come out regarding the next version of Windows, code-named Windows 7. Let me try to summarize what I've seen...

When it Will Release

First, let me touch on the release date, since that's been heavily debated. The initial speculation was that Windows 7 would be released in 2010. Later, rumors of a 2009 release cropped up. It wasn't too long until Microsoft released comments stating that Windows 7 would take three years to develop. Speculation from the field translated this to 2011 release. Of course, that was coupled with some doubt. As if that wasn't enough, Bill Gates recently stated that the team is targeting first quarter 2010. I'm sure the Windows team is slapping their heads wondering why he shared this, but it's too late, now. I believe the team has been purposefully quiet about the release for two reasons: (1) to ensure the release was on time; and, (2) to lessen the impact on Vista sales. I don't blame them. If you ask me, I think we'll be looking at an early 2010 release with hopes that it'll be ready in 2009. Of course, I have nothing to back that up, so it's merely a blind prediction.

How it Will Release

Microsoft has had a vision of releasing components of Windows independently for the past 6+ years. This was mainly related to the server operating system, but it's still a great feature for the client. With the software+services push, some are speculating there will be a piece-meal release methodology. I don't expect us to see this with Windows 7, but it's coming. There have also been rumors of subscriptions, which is another area Microsoft has been interested in for years. In my mind, this is more of an issue with society, than Microsoft. If the community would grasp the concept, Microsoft would definitely go there. I don't know if we'll see that in the next release or not, but it's another thing I see coming eventually.

What it Will Include

A while back, there were some hints to what was going to be included in Windows 7, but it now lookse the release is picking up a new set of pillars focused on design and usability: specialized for laptops, designed for services, personalized computing, optimized for entertainment, and engineered for ease of ownership.Taking it all in, the core concepts seem to be around ease of use, connected computing, and security -- pretty much taking the next step after Vista. I see this being evolutionary, as opposed to the revolutionary version of Windows I hoped this was going to be. I guess I can hold onto those hopes for the next release.

With an increasingly mobile workforce and consumer population, tuning the OS for laptops is going to be a big win. With this, they'll be looking at data security, responsiveness, touch/tablet interfaces, wireless connectivity, "on demand" access to all your information, and power management. Most of these are pretty obvious. The only one I had to take a second look at was "on demand" access. This is basically about either storing your information in the cloud or ensuring access to it, no matter where it may live. Windows Live is how we're going to get there. This pretty much says that Windows 7 will definitely have some Windows Live integration. I can already see the EU beckoning for "justice."

With the "on demand" component of the last pillar, we have a good transition into the second, designed for services. This one's obvious as well. Windows will focus on remaining up-to-date (as in with patches), worry-free upgrades, Windows online , help and community, family-friendly web experience, gadgets, and in-box application improvements. We already have most of what's here. I think the pillar is mostly about providing a more integrated experience. I am curious how Microsoft plans to achieve "worry-free upgrades." That's going a long way. Apple has that today, so it's not entirely out of the question, but I think Apple gets it thru customer confidence, not by technical prowess. Lastly, I'm interested in the application improvements. I've been using custom apps like Notepad2 and Paint.NET for a while now and it'd be nice to have something better than what was delivered in Windows 95 built-in. I heard about upgrades to these apps last year, but haven't seen what's come of that. The AeroExperience website posted these images. I hope this isn't it, tho. This is a bit minimal.

Personalized computing is something that will really bring Windows back to the consumer. To achieve this, Microsoft will target customization, internationalization, access anywhere, secure roaming, and home network management. Again, these are pretty self-explanatory.

The next pillar is about high definition graphics, media streaming, better playback, TV on Windows, and audio improvements. This is another area that is pretty much just enhancing what we already have today. I'm mostly interested in the TV on Windows scenario. This is already available, but very limited today. I consider this to be part of the Media Center vision, but Microsoft seems to have a few different products in the area. I hope there will be some consolidation here, but that may not make complete sense.

The last pillar is about ownership. Microsoft will put a strong emphasis on diagnostics and data recovery, lessening the fear of new applications by decreasing the need for administrative access, improved upgrade experience, administrative productivity and security enhancements, devices that "just work," quick/clean out-of-the-box experience, reduced management time/cost, and improved data security. We've seen a lot of improvements in this area with Vista and there's still some room to grow. If you haven't jumped on-board with Vista, you're in for a vastly improved experience and it looks like Windows 7 will be even better.

Microsoft Boy

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:34:00 GMT

This parody came out a while ago, but it's too funny to pass up. I haven't seen it linked to much, so maybe you haven't seen it. It's the story of a day in the life of what a Microsoft marketeer must have been like as a school boy.

Muchacho de Microsoft

En Español

Este parodiar fue fijado hace un rato, pero es demasiado divertido sin mencionar. No he visto a demasiada gente el hablar de él, usted no lo he visto tan quizá. Es la historia de un día en la vida de un vendedor de Microsoft como muchacho de escuela.

Surface in the Home

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:20:00 GMT

I'm excited about Surface, that's for sure. Powered by WPF, it's a great platform for some very cool apps. Despite the fact that other vendors are looking to dig into the space, nothing has really happened since Surface was initially announced. Things may be changing, tho. There's been a huge demand from the field and apparently Microsoft is looking to release Surface to consumers sooner than the 5 year estimate initially estimated. I can't say I'm surprised, but what that will really mean isn't very clear. If I had to guess, I'd say the first consumer version of Surface would arrive in 2010. The biggest blocker to getting it out sooner is the cost of hardware necessary to produce the large-scale graphics and touch capabilities.

Surface en la Casa

En Español

Me excitan sobre Surface. Accionado por WPF, es una gran plataforma para algunos aplicaciones muy buenos. A pesar de que se busquen otros proveedores para cavar en el espacio, en realidad nada ha ocurrido desde que se anunció Surface inicialmente. Cosas pueden estar cambiando. Hay una gran demanda y aparentemente Microsoft puede publicar Surface a consumidores antes que la estimación de 5 años. Estoy no se sorprenda, pero el mensaje no es muy claro. Si tuvieran que adivinar, diría que la primera versión de consumidor de superficie llegarán en 2010. El Bloqueador de elementos más importante para conseguir fuera antes es el costo del hardware necesario para generar los gráficos a gran escala y tocar las capacidades.

Microsoft and Subscription-Based PC's

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:31:00 GMT

As part of its Unlimited Potential program, Microsoft is starting to offer subscription-based PC's in Russia. PC subscriptions aren't anything new, but they never seemed to pick up. I believe this is the first time Microsoft has joined the game, tho. The only reason this interests me is because I'm hoping Microsoft will get into the PC hardware business. Quality hardware is the one key differentiator between Microsoft and Apple, as far as I see it.

Microsoft y Computadoras de Suscripciones

En Español

Como parte de su programa Potencial Ilimitado, Microsoft está comenzado a ofrecer computadoras de suscripciones en Russia. Las suscripciones de las computadoras no son cualquier cosa nueva, sino que nunca parecían ser acertadas. Creo que es esto el primera vez que Microsoft ha hecho, aunque. La única razón que ésta me interesa es porque estoy esperando que Microsoft conseguirá en el negocio del hardware de las computadoras. El hardware de la calidad es el un diferenciador dominante entre Microsoft y Apple. Un poco dudo veamos mucha tracción, pero mantendré mis dedos cruzados.

Improving Standards Compliance in IE

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:15:00 GMT

I wrote this a month ago, so it may seem a little out of date. I figured I'd go ahead and post it anyway. If you haven't been following IE8 much, it'll still seem like new

Standards compliance has never really caught on with the vast majority of web developers. Since Firefox hit the streets, more developers have started to pay attention to the ideals behind web standards, but they still don't seem to be doing the work to achieve compliance. Admittedly, a lot of the problems were brought on by IE's acceptance of bad practices, but the root of the problem truly lies with developers. IE7 resolved a number of standards compliance issues, but unfortunately, it broke a number of sites built specifically for IE6 at the same time. IE8 tries to resolve this problem. Today, we can opt-in to standards by specifying a DOCTYPE, which indicates what version of what standard the developer intends for a page. The problem is that no browser to date implements any standard completely, so there's still a chance your page will render differently in browsers that "support" the desired standard. IE8 fixes this problem. How? By allowing developers to write pages for specific rendering engines (i.e. IE6, IE7, IE8, FF2, or FF3). I love this idea, for obvious reasons.

With IE8 and Firefox 3 both passing the Acid2 test and Acid3 on its way, I think we're in very good standing. While I don't expect huge leaps and bounds between IE8 and 9, I think we're well on our way to some form of nirvana on the web. Hopefully, IE9 will come in the Win7 time frame, which I expect to be in 2009 or 10.

Toshiba Announcement == More Zune Storage

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:01:00 GMT

First off, I have to say this is completely off -the-cuff. I have no insight into the Zune team or its plans. This is one of those teams that keeps a lot to themselves. While I hate this because I'm just as curious as other consumers are, there's a time and place for any announcement, and it seems some teams are leaning towards less transparency than others to avoid over-promising and under-delivering. Anyway, Toshiba just announced the availability of 120 GB 1.8" hard drives. Seeing as tho Toshiba manufactures the Zune, I can only imagine this means we'll be seeing 120 GB Zunes this holiday season. Of course, there's always an option for those of us who are less patient. At first I was hoping this meant smaller Zunes, but it looks like they already use 1.8" drives.

Anuncio de Toshiba == Más Almacenaje de Zune

En Español

Antes de que proceda, tengo que decir que no tengo ninguna penetración en el equipo de Zune o sus planes. Éste es uno de esos equipos que guardan secretos. Mientras que odio esto porque soy apenas tan curioso como otros consumidores, hay una época y un lugar para cualquier anuncio, y parece que algunos equipos están anunciando menos a evitar prometiendo demasiado y la entrega de demasiado poco. Toshiba anunció los discos duros de 1,8 pulgadas con 120 GB de almacenaje. Desde entonces Toshiba crea el Zune, creo que Microsoft va a lanzar el Zune con 120 GB de almacenaje este año. Por supuesto, hay una opción para la gente impaciente. Inicialmente, esperaba para un Zune más pequeño, pero usan discos duros de 1,8 pulgadas ahora.

SkyDrive's Official Release

Michael Flanakin — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:18:00 GMT

I looked at Windows Live SkyDrive a while ago and, while it has a nice UI, it wasn't quite enough. One of my complaints was the measly 500 MB of storage. Well, with the official release of the service, we now have 5 GB of storage, which seems to be standard nowadays. I was actually hoping for more integration between SkyDrive, Hotmail, and Spaces, but that hasn't panned out, yet. I was glad to see there's a bulk upload utility included. This was perhaps the main reason I hadn't uploaded the majority of my content. Now that it's there, I'm going to start uploading some graphic files I use for development. I don't think SkyDrive is ready to be central to my life, yet, but it's on its way. Integration with FolderShare is probably the next step, if you ask me. With that, I'd definitely start using it more. Of course, I've seen a preview of the next version of FolderShare and that doesn't seem to be an option. Of course, the update is very minimal, so I'm not sure how complete it is. The same team manages FolderShare and SkyDrive, so integration is going to happen without a doubt; it's just the time in which that's going to happen that's the real question. Speaking of questions, there's also a new service on the horizon (no pun intended, for those in the know). I don't have details, but it looks like a promising sync service with lofty, yet realistic goals. I can't wait to hear more.

Lanzamiento Oficial de SkyDrive

En Español

Repasé Windows Live SkyDrive hace un rato y, mientras que es bonito, no era absolutamente bastante. Una de mis quejas era el 500 MB de almacenaje. Con el lanzamiento oficial, tenemos 5 GB. Esperaba más integración entre SkyDrive, Hotmail, y Spaces, pero eso no ha sucedido. Me gusto la utilidad de carga masiva. Ésta es la razón principal que no carga mi contenido. Ahora, voy a iniciar la carga de gráficos. No creo que SkyDrive está acabado, todavía, pero está mejor. Integración con FolderShare es probablemente el paso siguiente. Comenzaría definitivamente a usarlo más con eso. Ha utilizado una versión preliminar de la siguiente versión de FolderShare y no tiene la integración. Parece la verión es muy mínimo, tan no creo que haya finalizado. El mismo equipo desarrollo ambos, tan integración va definitivamente a suceder; pero no conocemos cuando. Mientras que estoy en el tema, Microsoft está trabajando en un nuevo servicio de la sinc. No tengo detalles, pero parece agradable. No puedo esperar para oír más.

XNA Game Studio Announcements

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:57:00 GMT

There are two significant gaming announcments that came out recently at the Game Developers' Conference (GDC) 2008. First, Xbox Live Community Games is the official release XNA Game Studio was intended for. Now, small-time game developers can play and share their games with others. This is pretty sweet for anyone interested in gaming, which is perhaps every developer at one point or another in their career. I know small-time gaming is what initially caught my interest.

The second announcement, made during the same keynote at GDC 2008, was that we'll be seeing games for the Zune in the future. What's nice is that the games will also be supported on first gen Zunes. Microsoft has been pretty good about supporting early adopters with respect to the Zune. I'm not sure how long that will last, but it's much appreciated... especially since I have 2 Zune 30s and don't feel like the second gen Zunes add enough to warrant an upgrade. I'll be looking at the third gen Zune for sure, tho. Microsoft stated that we'll see another release of XNA Game Studio to support the Zune in the spring. There haven't been many details about this admittedly early announcement, but I'm sure we'll hear more in the coming months.

One thing that gets me about this is the distribution model to be used for Zune. The fact that Microsoft has Windows Marketplace, Xbox Live Marketplace, and Zune Marketplace annoys the crap out of me. Microsoft needs to come out with a generic marketplace with "channels" specific to Windows, Xbox, and Zune. Sure, having something specific to your market is nice, but it just seems like overkill. The fact that each has its own purchasing model has to be even more frustrating to people who use more than one of these services. I guess I want something a little more integrated. That's not too much to ask for, is it? I'd like to see Zune games released or managed via Xbox Live Marketplace, but that probably won't happen, since they'll most likely be distributed via Zune Marketplace. Hopefully, this will drive the first integration between the two services.

Microsoft's Official Position on UML

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:44:00 GMT

I made a few comments about Microsoft's work around MDA and how I don't quite understand Microsoft's official position on UML. David Cutler pointed out that I should take some initiative and dig around for some reasoning behind that. Well I did, and I found out that things are changing. Visual Studio "Rosario" will have a number of UML designers built on the DSL Tools designer framework. I'm very glad to hear this because I've been looking for them for quite a while and remember scoffing Microsoft for not investing more than a class diagram in Visual Studio 2005. I had hoped Visual Studio 2008 would have included some new designers, but alas, it didn't. The November 2007 CTP includes two new designers in Team Edition for Architects (Team Arch) and obviously the all-up Team Suite. I haven't used the new sequence or logical class designer, yet, but I'm definitely intrigued by them. I doubt the sequence diagram will be auto-generating at first, but you never know. Either way, I'm glad to see Microsoft is embracing UML more.

Of course, this doesn't answer the question of what Microsoft's official position on UML is. That's a hard one to answer, considering we're a company of individuals who have individual thoughts and ideals, just like any other company. Most of the people I talked to were the vocal few, but it's clear that UML isn't the unanimous terror that Microsoft seems to have made it out to be. I'm glad I'm not the only one to believe that. While I'm not making any anouncements today, I can say that we will get a clearer message of where Microsoft is going with respect to UML. As I understand it, there will be more designers on the books for the next CTP in the March/April time frame, so I think I can finally say we're on the right track. Better late than never, right?

What to Expect with Open XML

Michael Flanakin — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:29:00 GMT

If you're not familiar with the story behind Open XML to date, Rob Weir of IBM has a decent overview. I'd be remissed if I didn't say he was somewhat biased, tho. An example of this is a comment he made about how he believes Microsoft will drive change in Open XML with every release of Office. This, in itself, shows how little he understands about the Open XML format and why its proponents believe in it as a superior format to ODF. I have no doubt Microsoft will try to push modifications as more and more customers ask for new and innovative features, but that's exactly why Open XML is better -- it was built with extensibility in mind, unlike ODF.

Here we are, waiting for the last leg of the process to kick off at the end of this month and some skeptics say, "While you're waiting [for the ISO decision on standardization], don't save in OOXML format." Should you listen? Probably not. There are some seemingly logical arguments behind the comment, but the position is flawed. He states that you should use the legacy binary formats to ensure a truly "open" experience. To word that another way, you should use a proprietary binary format instead of one based on open standards, such as ZIP and XML. I'm sorry, but I'll stick with my Open XML file formats, which I have full control over and can get data out should I need it, unlike formats like the legacy DOC and PDF formats, which require binary interpreters. I can get my data out of Open XML files without any document reader. I simply need a tool to extract the content and read text files -- not that I expect everyone to feel this way. Also, with more and more format converters out there, I fail to see the importance of constantly saving to a format your tool of choice doesn't natively support without translation. You'll get a much better experience working in native formats and only converting to another when you need to publish or share your content externally.

We're not looking at all bad news, tho. With the 3522 comments made on the original specification, most overlapping on similar concerns, 662 responses have been made. I don't know if there was truly that much overlap that would support 662 answers to 3522 comments, but you can browse the comments and responses online. In another attempt to ease the community into the new formats, Microsoft has also published the legacy binary formats.

What's perhaps more interesting is the fact that, in a truly independent study, the Burton Group found Open XML to be a superior format. You can get that report online, but I doubt most people will see it. Perhaps developers at traditional Open XML opposing companies like IBM and Google read it, tho, seeing as their products seem to support the new formats. Of course, I think this is a must-have. You can't have a tool that neglects the native file format for the de-facto standard when it comes to productivity applications.

What do I expect? I expect the format to be approved. I'd be lying if I said there wasn't a doubt in my mind, but the evidence is there that it's a superior format. The fact that these open source companies are so up-in-arms about Microsoft wanting to push its own formats thru the standardization process says something about their motives. Microsoft wants options and, with that, extensibility. If the format is judged on the merits, like all good arguments, the answer is clear. If you ask me, the worst thing about Open XML is Microsoft's name on it. If that weren't there, it'd already be a standard.

Mac vs. Windows: Vulnerabilities of 2007

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:01:00 GMT

Just wanted to share some vulnerability stats from 2007 for Mac and Windows. Mac had 12 times the number of vulnerabilities that Windows Vista had and 5.5 times the number of combined Vista and XP vulnerabilities. At first I was surprised, but then I thought back to rumblings of insecurity and talk about Windows Vista being more secure than Mac OS before that. It's been nice to see the Mac security myth begin to fade away and watch as Microsoft's credibility around security grows. I expect this trend to continue thru the year; especially as more and more users are exposed to Mac's. And, yes, I do see Mac use growing this year. While I'm making predictions, I think I feel pretty comfortable saying Vista won't see the widespread adoption people seem to expect. This is ironic, considering it's truly the best version of the OS to date. Nevertheless, the reason I say that is because I expect to hear more and more talk of Windows "7" this year. I'm guessing that people who've hesitated to upgrade might prefer to see what's next, since there's talk about it being released in 2009. Microsoft is good at learning from its mistakes, so I think we'll see a very big boom when Windows "7" hits the streets.

Windows XP, Vista, and Mac OS X vulnerability stats for 2007
	XP	Vista	XP + Vista	Mac OS X
Total extremely critical	3	1	4	0
Total highly critical	19	12	23	234
Total moderately critical	2	1	3	2
Total less critical	3	1	4	7
Total flaws	34	20	44	243
Average flaws per month	2.83	1.67	3.67	20.25

Mac contra Windows: Vulnerabilidades de 2007

En Español

Quiero compartir algunos estadísticas de vulnerabilidades para Mac y Windows en 2007. Mac tuvo 12 veces el número de vulnerabilidades que Windows Vista tuvo y 5,5 veces Vista y XP combinados. Al principio, me sorprendió, pero pensé de discusiones de la inseguridad y sobre Window Vista que es más seguro que el Mac. Ha sido agradable ver el mito de seguridad de Mac comience a desaparezca y mira el credibilidad de Microsoft alrededor seguridad crece. Espero que esto continúe este año; especialmente como usuarios se exponen cada vez más a Mac. Sí, veo Mac utilizar el crecimiento de este año. Mientras que estoy haciendo predicciones, no pienso que Vista verá la adopción extensa este año. Esto es irónico, porque Vista es la mejor versión de la OS. Espero oír cada vez más la charla de Windows "7" este año. Pienso que gente que ha esperado para aumentar esperará ver lo que es nuevo, puesto que la gente ha hablado sobre la lanzaba en 2009. Microsoft es bueno en el aprendizaje de sus errores, así que pienso que veremos un auge muy grande cuando Windows “7” golpes las calles.

Estadísticas de Vulnerabilidades para Windows XP, Vista, y Mac OS X en 2007
	XP	Vista	XP + Vista	Mac OS X
Total extremely critical	3	1	4	0
Total highly critical	19	12	23	234
Total moderately critical	2	1	3	2
Total less critical	3	1	4	7
Defectos totales	34	20	44	243
Defectos medios por mes	2.83	1.67	3.67	20.25

Searching for a Search Solution?

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:34:00 GMT

Microsoft’s search story has been a bad one. Not because the tools are lacking; it’s the marketing that has hurt the product. You’re probably asking, "What search story?" Windows Desktop Search has been out for desktop users for a while, but I have to say the WDS experience on XP sucks. I’m not sure why it changed so much for Vista, but it’s completely different. After experiencing Vista, I look for search everywhere; and, when it’s not there, it’s my first complaint. Vista sold me; search needs to be completely ubiquitous. If your app doesn’t incorporate search, you’re probably not doing your customers justice.

What is Microsoft doing for enterprise search? The answer over the past year has been SharePoint for Search. Now, you’re probably asking why you need SharePoint. This is exactly the problem. You don’t need SharePoint and, honestly, SharePoint doesn’t have anything to do with it, hence the marketing problem. Well, it seems like things are changing. Microsoft is now pushing Search Server (MSS) 2008. Perhaps one of the best things with this announcement is the lighter-weight companion, Search Server 2008 Express. I don’t know all the rules behind when you would want to use one or the other, but this is a great opportunity.

If you’re asking yourself why you’d want MSS when Google has such a strong search technology, I’d have to argue that perceptions aren’t always reality. I’m not saying Google doesn’t have a good product on their hands; I’m just saying MSS is better than you probably think. I live in search and have for the past 9 years. I picked up on Google fairly early and made it part of my life. When I switched to Windows Live, I thought I’d be missing something, but I wasn’t. I haven’t looked back. I’m not saying it’s been a better experience, but it hasn’t been worse. It’s equivalent. With respect to enterprise search, MSS is hands-down a better choice than Google. Why? Security. Google knows search in the public domain; that’s what it’s good at. Grabbing everything and making it discoverable to the masses. Tell me; do you want your company's contract details and competitive info made available to everyone who has access to the intranet or just those with the right need-to-know? Google can’t give you discoverability and security of sensitive material -- it’s all or nothing. Microsoft has been very good at only showing results to those who have access to them. For this reason, I think Microsoft has a stronger enterprise search story. What’s great is that you can now take advantage of this search and the security included in that within your applications.

You're probably wondering what’s new in MSS. Not much. I’ve seen some talk of a streamlined installation and admin experience, use of the OpenSearch standard, performance and indexing enhancements, and my favorite, no pre-set document limits. This last one surprised me a little. Most of these products, especially “express”-style product lines have limits. That’s right, you heard me correctly. MSS Express has no document limits. Well, at least that’s what I’ve read. I find this pretty astounding, honestly. There’s gotta be a catch somewhere, right? Well, there is one, but I think it’s one you can probably live with. MSS Express only supports single server installs. Most people looking for something like this will probably be perfectly fine with that. Others might be just as happy to know they can get MSS Express to create a prototype and then scale up from there, if necessary.

If you’re interested in search, keep an eye on the MSS team’s blog . The official release won’t be out until March-ish 2008, but there is a release candidate available. The only other thing I should really mention is that MSS is intended to be a search-only solution. If you have your sights set on collaboration, SharePoint is still going to be the answer for you. Personally, I’m interested on what MSS can do for applications. It may not be the right fit, but it’s something I’d like to look into more.

Microsoft's MDA Foundations

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 07:16:00 GMT

I don't know if I'll ever understand Microsoft's official position with respect to UML. Sure, the concept behind domain specific languages (DSLs) is sound, but is it truly necessary? I haven't seen any proof of that. Well, to be more specific, I should say I don't see a need for DSLs when it comes to software analisys and design -- UML has just about everything I've needed and extending it seems to be the logical answer. On the other hand, DSLs are absolutely fantastic for applications that can visualize their data. Honestly, I think more apps should consider DSLs, but when most developers either don't know or don't use software modelling tools, I have to say I'm not surprised. I, for one, have been meaning to dig into Microsoft's DSL Tools, but haven't had the time. One of these days, perhaps. Either way, this is the foundation for Microsoft's MDA approach... well, the development environment, at least. There's an interesting story there, but I'll blog about that later.

More Versioning BS

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:26:00 GMT

It's been a while since I've complained about version numbers, but Rocky Lhotka's latest post about his versioning scheme for CSLA has sparked another bout. What Rocky is doing is retarded. He's dumbing down version numbers for those who fine versioning difficult. When .NET was first released, this is something I knew was coming. Look at Java, where developers deal with a dozen different frameworks and tools just to work on their project and guess what... they're all different version numbers! Hell, even the desktop and server frameworks are different. Ok, so the latter is a tad ridiculous, but the former makes complete sense. Every tool should have its own version number which accurately depicts its version. Major version numbers only change when there's a major change in the code -- typically a breaking change. Sure, this might include .NET 2.0 vs 3.0, but it doesn't have to. Don't blame Microsoft's stupid version numbers on yours. If your users don't understand proper versioning, why the hell are you listening to them!?

I still have to say .NET 3.0 isn't necessarily wrong. WPF was a major change that should've been introduced as a major upgrade. I'd say that all four parts of .NET 3.0 are major updates. The real problem I see with .NET 3.0 has nothing to do with the version number, but the lack of any other improvements, which would've further justified the version number. Honestly, I would've been fine with 2.1 or 3.0. The real butcher of a job Microsoft did on version numbers was 3.5. What the hell was that!? There were no, nor were there ever planned to be any intermediate versions. Again, I'd have been fine with 2.2 or 3.1, but 3.5 was just stupid. I had hoped this wouldn't turn out to be the next version, but no such luck.

On the lighter side of things, the big improvement for Silverlight will now be Silverlight 2.0. I imagine this had something to do with the .NET 3.x version issues. Either way, it's nice to see.

Mixed Bag of Transparency

Michael Flanakin — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:35:00 GMT

There's been a big change in Microsoft in the past five or so years. The biggest thing we've noticed is the increased transparency on key initiatives. The change isn't limited to Microsoft, tho. Weblogs have increased communication between vendors and consumers, which has been great, from a consumer standpoint. I love knowing about what's coming and feeling like I have some say in the future of my favorite apps -- albeit merely a perception and not reality in some cases. I look at the various Microsoft projects and think about how the level of transparency differs. It's kind of amazy how the Visual Studio team is so open, yet the IE team is so closed. I'm starting to think there's a pattern, tho. There seems to be a relationship between the amount of competition a product has and the level of transparency of its team.

Think about it, Visual Studio is unequalled. The closest competition is Eclipse, which is for a different platform. .NET is pretty much the same. Java's out there, but seems to be declining in popularity more and more. Sure, there are plenty other development platforms out there. .NET isn't even the most used; but I'd argue that it is the most popular and newsworthy. Anyway, the point is that, since there isn't a lot of active competition for .NET and Visual Studio, the product teams share a great deal. We have a lot info about what's coming in the next release of Visual Studio and have been seeing previews since before Visual Studio 2008 was released. How many other companies do this? Name one.

Then there's Windows. While Windows may be the most used operating system in the world, there is competition. Consumers are looking at the Mac and the corporate/government world has always kept an eye on Solaris and the various flavors of Linux. The thing I find funny is that it's never about features when discussing Solaris and Linux; at least that's the impression I get. There's obvious competition that's always on the heels of Windows, but the lead is undeniable. Given the comfortable lead, the team shares a good amount. Of course, with the issues Vista had, I expect we'll see slightly less transparency this go-round. We should see a list of features and plenty of CTPs, but not quite what the VS team does.

IE has a lot of competition. The browser market has almost always been a heated battle. IE's losing market share because of the stagnation of IE6, but finally made a comeback with IE7. The market has changed, tho, thanks to Firefox. Opera has always been out there, but never made too significant of an impression. That's too bad, because I think the Opera team does have something to show. The truth is, all browsers are lacking innovation. When's the last time we saw something new? Anyway, I think this heavy competition is why we haven't seen anything from the IE team. I think they have something up their sleeve -- something truly innovative. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, tho. I'm sure we'll see CTPs and/or betas, but not quite as much as with Windows. Zune is another product in this area; perhaps even more so than IE.

The relationship between competition and transparency makes a lot of sense, when you think about it; especially in the corporate world, where money's at stake. I just wish everyone would share insight into their goings-on.

Exciting News for IE8!!!

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:47:00 GMT

For the first time, the IE team has released tidbits on the next release of the popular web browser. What's the news? The version number. You've gotta be kidding me, right!? I think we've all been calling the damn thing IE8 for quite some time. The fact that the team went out of their way to tell us it'll be called IE8 is somewhat ridiculous. Get over yourself, people, you're not that creative. The post was somewhat reminiscent of... naw... the damn post was a rip-off of the Silverlight team, where Tim Sneath listed other possible names for the product. That post was pretty funny and I'd suggest checking it out, if you haven't already.This just annoys me. It's even worse than the astounding announcement that Steve Jobs will have the opening keynote at MacWorld 2008. Freakin' morons...

Mac vs Windows UI Comparison

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 15:14:00 GMT

Here's an interesting comparison of the user interfaces for Mac and Windows over the past ~13 years. I found it somewhat interesting, so I put a little more effort to see which ones came out first, hence the timeline below the UI comparison...

In the timeline, I marked the significant releases in red. This is just my opinion, of course, and others may think otherwise. The first thing I have to say is they should've included Windows 3.x, which is fairly similar to MacOS 7. Also, I want to say MacOS 7 is relatively similar to previous releases, visually, but I'm not 100% sure. Aside from that, if you compare it to the above UI comparison, you notice that Apple did a good job of pumping out releases fairly quickly, but Microsoft beat them to the market with Windows 3.0. Windows 3.1 was the release that really caught on, tho. Of course, the big story was Windows 95. I want to say Windows 95 had the largest release in the history of personal computers. The 7 year stagnation between MacOS 7 and 8 is probably the worst thing Apple could've done. I don't know about the promises at the time, but this was worse than the Vista release! Beyond that, MacOS 8 wasn't even much of an improvement. In my mind, Windows 95 leap-frogged MacOS, who wouldn't come close to catching up until 5.5 years later, with MacOS X. To say that another way, Apple couldn't beat Microsoft until they dropped their main code-base and started with Unix. I think that says a lot about the quality of Apple's code. Ok, maybe that's a low blow, but whatever. 9 months later, Microsoft released Windows XP, which gave Windows a bubbly/cartoony UI... which I have always hated. Finally, Windows Vista hits the streets in 2006 with a lot of big improvements, arguably the biggest upgrade since Windows 95. Of course, with such a huge market behind Windows, Microsoft can't survive without its vendors, which is the biggest reason Vista isn't on every desktop... well, the Windows users' desktops, at least. Lastly, the next incremental release of MacOS X was released last month. "Leopard" has a few very nice features, but isn't really a huge upgrade. Honestly, since MacOS X, Mac users haven't seen any big changes. So, we're coming up on 7 years since the last major Mac upgrade. Don't you think it's about time we see something big? Don't expect it, tho. I'd put my money on the next version of Windows coming out before a major upgrade to MacOS. Of course, Windows "7" may not be as big as I was hoping. Those changes may be reserved for the Windows 8.0 release, which I'd guess would be around 2012. Man... that's forever!

Windows "7" Wish List

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:32:00 GMT

A supposed wish list of features for Windows "7" has been brought to light. I can neihter confirm nor deny the list, but I do think it's worth sharing. The key features in this list I'm interested in are the multi-monitor taskbar, virtual desktop, and CD/DVD image support, reopen closed tabs in IE, and integrated IE instances.

I'm not sure how much can be done to improve the taskbar for multiple monitors besides having the option to span both, which I don't like, but it'd be interesting to see. On the other hand, there are rumors that "7" (or maybe "7"+1, whether that be 7.1 or 8.0) will include a new UI, which doesn't include the start menu or taskbar. This is what I'd truly like to see; and, given the potential removal of the taskbar, the question of multi-monitor improvements comes up once again. Of course, this new UI might be built around that concept, so maybe it won't be an issue. With any major UI change, however, there are some supportability challenges Microsoft will face. Look at Office 2007 and how much ruckus came with that. Luckily, the change was well-accepted in the end. This is a gamble, tho.

A virtual desktop would be absolutely awesome. I just hope it's better than Microsoft's last foray into the virtual desktop space -- a power toy for XP, which was simply horrible. My current virtual desktop app has been commercialized, so it'd be nice to see something built into the OS.

Having the ability to mount a CD/DVD image will be nice. Microsoft had a Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel application (mentioned here), but it wasn't as integrated as I'd have liked. Oh, and it only works in Windows XP. If you're interested in this functionality in Windows Vista, check out MagicDisc.

There are a number of IE features in the list, too, like reopening closed tabs, which I currently have with IE7Pro; and, allowing you to drag tabs from one browser instance to another. I'm somewhat concerned with/interested in how session state will be managed in this scenario, since new tabs in the same IE instance are currently working with the same server session. I don't think I'd group these into the Windows "7" wishlist, tho, because I expect IE8 to be released before Windows "7." I'm expecting us to start hearing about betas in 2008 with an early 2009 release. Granted, I have no basis for that timeline, but a 2008 release date seems a bit too soon, given the lack of information we've seen. Either way, IE8 will be an exciting release. I'm expecting some game-changing features.

There were also a few features for Windows Mail and Calendar mentioned. I wonder how much Microsoft will be putting into these products. Currently, Microsoft has four actively supported desktop mail/calendar clients: Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows Mail/Calendar, and Windows Live Mail. Obviously, Outlook Express has been deprecated. I have a feeling Windows Mail will be deprecated, as well. The only thing stopping that, in my mind, is potential legal problems. I see Windows Mail and Calendar as apps necessary for the Windows Vista release. With the Windows Live suite, there's no reason to keep them around.

Open Document Foundation Down and Out

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 04:35:00 GMT

Within the past month, the Open Document Foundation officially declared it would no longer support the Open Document Format (ODF). I had my speculations about the reasoning behind this move, but I can't say I would've guessed the foundation would close its doors. Of course, that was before the W3C knocked its own contender who the Open Document Foundation has chosen as its next poster-child, Compound Document Format (CDF), down a few pegs. That may sound a bit harsh, but apparently, W3C's Chris Lilley stated, "CDF... was not created to be, and isn't suitable for use, as an office format." There's nothing really wrong with this, but it definitely took the wind out of the foundation's sails. So much so, that there doesn't seem to have been any public announcement of the end of the foundation. All we know is the official website (broken link) has been taken down.

So, what will this mean for ODF? Who knows. It would've been nice to have seen the foundation approach Microsoft regarding Open XML, but that obviously didn't happen -- surprise, surprise. ODF won't simply go away. Sun and IBM are pushing it with pretty big budgets, hoping it'll grow the dying Open Office initiative. There have been some speculations noting that this could be the early stages of ODF's slow death, but I don't think it'll go so easily. I guess the astonishing thing is that the foundation just called it quits on the effort they supposedly felt so strongly about. If they really felt so strongly, I imagine they'd have worked a little harder to find a viable solution, even if it was to back Microsoft.

Live Documents

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:20:00 GMT

The co-founder of the Microsoft-acquired Hotmail web-based email system is apparently working on a new service, Live Documents. As you could possibly guess, the service allows web-based sharing and editing of documents, specifically, Office documents. This will include Word, Excel, and PowerPoint documents.This will compete with Office Live service Microsoft has been pushing for a couple years, now. Of course, what Office Live is missing is the online editing capability. I imagine we'll see that at some point, but it'll probably be a while before Microsoft truly embraces the web for what it is. Microsoft's official position with web vs. Windows has always aggravated me. Perhaps it's time for a change; out with the old, in with the new. Not sure if the existing new meat will do that or not. We'll have to see how the next year goes. What really gets me about this particular service is the name. I don't imagine Microsoft will just sit back while this company banks on the use of the "Live" franchise. With both Windows Live and Office Live, I think Microsoft has a pretty good claim here. Especially when you consider this is specifically about Office. Microsoft will push Office Live and users will happen across Live Documents, thinking they're one and the same. Obviously, that's not the case.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the competition. I don't expect much out of Google Docs, so this will hit a little closer to home. I want someone to push Microsoft. Like I said, I think they've made some stupid decisions in the web vs. Windows war and Microsoft obviously has a lot to learn.

If Microsoft Designed Gmail

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:33:00 GMT

After reading the title for What If Gmail Had Been Designed by Microsoft?, I was happy to see someone acknowledging something Microsoft usually does a good job on: design. Then, as the web page loaded, I thought about how disappointed I've been with "Windows Live" Hotmail. I put quotes around Windows Live because it just doesn't feel like Live to me. I have a picture in my mind of what Live means and Hotmail is definitely not it. As much as I hate to admit it, the article is spot on. While I think the Gmail UI is visually crap, there are other features which make it very nice. I haven't timed the apps, but I feel like performance is one of those benefits. I guess my biggest gripe about Google is UI. They offer a good feel with no look. Microsoft, on the other hand, typically delivers a very good look, but lacks the feel. Microsoft doesn't get ad-based revenue and that's obvious with Hotmail. Microsoft also doesn't seem to get productivity. Google does a good job at both of these things. Part of the problem Microsoft has, in my mind, is that it tries to support everyone. Google has focused on one set of users, which makes life a bit easier for them. Of course, I do think there's a happy medium, but neither company seems to be able to find it.

Microsoft's New Open Source Licenses

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:36:00 GMT

A month late, but still newsworthy, Microsoft's Reciprocal and Public Licenses, Ms-RL (via OSI) and Ms-PL (via OSI), have both been approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). If neither of these sound familiar to you, you're probably more familiar with the Reference and Permissive Licenses. The Microsoft Reference License is Microsoft's most restrictive license and is what was chosen when .NET went open source. So, where did these two come from? Well, they were renamed. Originally, these were submitted as the Microsoft Community and Permissive Licenses. I remember noting some debate on the name of the Permissive License, so I imagine the same debate forced a rename of the former. I think the name changes were good -- they seem more direct and explanatory. I know some things were questioned, but don't honestly know how much changed about the licenses. Perhaps my favorite thing about these licenses, including the Microsoft Reference License, is their brevity. Too many licenses are over-complicated *cough, cough* GPLv3 *cough, cough*

Microsoft Gunning for Google Gears?

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:02:00 GMT

Microsoft recently announced the Microsoft Sync Framework, which keeps disconnected users connected. Those familiar with it might wonder how this relates to Google Gears. There is a key difference, however; Gears is a browser plug-in, while the Sync Framework is, well, a framework. Don't get me wrong, this is a step in the right direction, but Google definitely showed Microsoft up on this one. I imagine we might see something from Microsoft in the way of a browser plug-in, but that's not Microsoft's typical style. Actually, I'd put my money on sync integration built into Silverlight 1.1. Coding in .NET and built-in sync? Silverlight's sounding better and better. Eat your heart out Flash.

Windows "7": UX, Consumers, and the S+S Vision

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:30:00 GMT

Anyone who knows about the history of Microsoft knows the company works best when challenged. While I can't imagine many reasons people would question XP vs. Vista, nobody can argue Microsoft has made a lot of stupid mistakes with this release. I foresee a change with Windows "7," tho. I'm expecting Windows "7" to be more focused on user experience and consumerisms than some of the previous releases. If not "7," then the follow-on release. Why? Because Apple is picking up steam.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Apple gets user interface design. Microsoft needs to take this to heart a bit more and strive to innovate on how users interact with the OS. I see this being the key differentiator in years to come. We've grown accustomed to the same old thing and I think we think there has to be a better way. I'm not saying today's computing experience is flawed. I merely think there's probably a better way to make the computer act like we do and predict our actions more than it does today... which is none. Microsoft started with Office 2007, so now it's time to do it with Windows.

Usability is one thing, but there's more to the equation. Let's face it, consumers have different needs than enterprises and Microsoft has seemingly put more effort in meeting enterprise needs than those of the consumer. How will Microsoft seek to improve on this? Today, I think the answer to that question is easy: Windows Live. The itch of the consumer is scratched with what comes in Windows Vista, but there's still much to be desired. What's the answer here? The growing suite of Windows Live products, of course. We're starting to see a one-to-one mapping of core Windows apps (i.e. mail and photo management) to Windows Live apps. Coincidence? I think not. Microsoft is treading new territory with the Windows Live suite, tho. It'll be interesting to see how things pan out over the next year or two; especially with the next release of Windows. With or without Windows Live, Windows is what needs to change to keep people from switching. Perhaps the Windows Live suite will replace what's built into Windows, perhaps not. I have to admit I can see that being a possibility. My only concern would be antitrust issues. Then again, most of the Windows Live apps I've used work with other services, as well, so maybe that won't be a problem. I imagine we simply need more of a plugin model or standardized service interfaces to augment that more for other service vendors. Hmm... maybe I'll stick with that. Windows Live being part of Windows just seems to make sense. With this, the software plus services (S+S) vision could almost be fully realized within Windows "7."

Microsoft Needs to Sell Hardware

Michael Flanakin — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:42:00 GMT

I was brought up on the Mac. I switched over to Windows a long time ago because of the power of the platform. For the most part, I haven't looked back. There is one thing that always seems to catch the corner of my eye, tho: user experience. Well, I've seen some pretty bad user experiences coming from Apple, so let me classify a bit more by saying user interface design. Apple does a good job of making things look great and feel pretty good. Microsoft has incrementally tried to fix this, but there's one major stop-gap: hardware. As long as Microsoft depends on 3rd party vendors to develop the hardware Windows lives on, Microsoft will be plagued with poor implementations. For this reason, I really want to see Microsoft start selling hardware; specifically, laptops. I honestly think the desktop market is somewhat stable. Sure, there can probably be some improvements, but with the increasing need for mobility, I'm more interested in laptops. Either way, the need is the same: a new infusion of fresh blood in the hardware industry. I don't want another Dell or HP, tho. I'm looking for one line of laptops tweaked for power users. I want it setup and configured for success. Forget the crap software vendors put on there -- you gotta love that Apple ad, Bloated. For once in my life, I'd like to get something I don't feel the need to format right off the bat. The key to this is very solid hardware. I want it pretty, I want it functional, and I want some out-of-the-box thinking in its design. I've been screaming for this in the back of my mind for over a year, now. There's only one problem... Microsoft.

Microsoft is not a hardware company. Look at the Xbox. Sure, the damn thing sells like candy, but how much of a loss has Microsoft taken because of faulty hardware? Yeah, that's right, a billion. Sure, it's pocket change, but that's money that could be used to innovate on a better platform. If I remember correctly, the Xbox itself (not the games) was a loss for the first few years and only recently saw its first profits -- gee, those didn't last long, did they? I honestly don't follow that market, but it just goes to show how bad Microsoft is at major hardware initiatives. Zune hasn't really proven itself, but there are other factors there. Besides, Zune is built by Toshiba... perhaps one of the worst hardware companies around, which doesn't make me feel any better. Where I'm going with all this, tho, is I don't want Microsoft proper to build this laptop line. I want a subsidiary who's dynamic and flexible. Someone with the resources of big daddy to ensure success, but with the ability to innovate and go to market with more agility -- something the hardware industry sucks at. Of course, maybe this isn't right, but I'd like to see it implemented before arguing one way or another. Take some notes from Apple and Lenovo and pull together a strong team who can build solid computers. Point them to the Windows, Office, Windows Live, and Research groups and let them show the world how Microsoft software was meant to be experienced.

...oh, and for God sakes, give me a good laptop keyboard!

The Vista Catch 22

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:55:00 GMT

I feel like I've been hearing more and more about how Vista is a flop lately. Some even say Microsoft should abandon Vista. I honestly have no idea what these people are talking about. I've switched myself and others on every machine I've had the opportunity to, 7 at last count, and nobody's looked back once. The only valid concern I've heard from people about upgrading is the fact that some hardware/software doesn't work or has problems. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to belittle the value of these things. I'm merely saying this isn't Microsoft's fault. Vista has been no secret. Microsoft is pretty good about letting its partners know what's coming. Heck, over the past 3-5 years, they've been getting better and better about letting us all know what's coming. Granted, all this one-sided effort to prepare vendors for the upgrade doesn't mean much if the vendors choose not to upgrade their software. Speaking of which, I have to say that the vast majority of the upgrade issues come from bad practices, including insecure software design from lazy developers. If you have an app that doesn't work, I'd question how secure it is and possibly the stance and effort the vendor has on and puts into security altogether. The bottom line is there's nothing Microsoft can really do at this point -- it's in the hands of vendors, now. With that, I'm going to say there's a catch 22 for those who've chosen not to upgrade/fix their software. Vendors won't put effort into fixing their products for Vista if users aren't migrating and users won't migrate unless their products are supported. What's everyone to do? Sure, Virtual PC can solve some problems, but not all. Besides, the idea of VPC boggles the minds of most end users, so I wouldn't even try to suggest that.

I have no idea what the right answer is, but it's an interesting problem Microsoft faces. This is a problem they've faced before, but never so drastic. Clearly, this is a key opportunity for other OS vendors to benefit as they offer potential migration paths for those not willing to migrate to Vista, but there's faulty logic there, too. Linux is still not an option for most users; and, Mac is more appealing than it's ever been -- especially with the latest release -- but we're starting to see it gravitate to more of a power user base -- especially with the latest release -- which doesn't make sense for the vast majority of users. On the Mac side, they suggest virtualization to solve any Windows-specific needs, which I'd argue is still too complex for most users.

Just to touch on the "abandon Vista" thought, I will say I think Microsoft should speed up it's plans to migrate off the Win32 platform. Well, let me clarify by saying I don't know if that's actually a plan or not. If it isn't, it should be. I've seen it coming for a while, but that's mostly in vague directions Microsoft has taken with different tools/technologies. I'd like to see a solid effort to dump the crap that's plagued Windows users for years. Not all at once, perhaps, but there needs to be a migration strategy. I think I've made my desires known: I want to see a .NET-based OS. There will be a platform shift, the question is when will it hit?

New Windows Mobile Look & Feel

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:43:00 GMT

There's no telling how true this really is, but there's rumored to be a new user interface for Windows Mobile. The post says it sits on top of WM6, which makes a little bit of sense, since WM6 was released not too long ago, but typically, UI enhancements constitute a major version change. Either way, I'm intrigued by the rumor. I will say there's been talk of a completely new user experience which isn't based on the "start" menu concept in the next version of Windows, but I don't know if this qualifies -- besides, this is just Windows Mobile. There's still a start menu, but it is a different concept than what we have now. I imagine Microsoft is looking for some new ideas and this is perhaps a prototype of one of those. I kind of doubt we'll see something too close to this interface, but I'm sure all WM users will be eager to see some change. There hasn't been a major change in the mobile user experience since its initial release six or seven years ago.

Google Reads Your Email

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:55:00 GMT

A small big deal was made about Steve Ballmer saying Google reads its users' email. When I read this, I thought, "You've gotta be kidding me! When does he stop!?" Ballmer's made a number of comments that go against company policy, which I think is funny. He's a very controversial CEO and a number of people think the company would do good without him because of this. I'm not going to go into that, tho. What I do want to go into is his comment. He did, in fact say, "...they read your mail and we don't," but I think it was taken out of context. Specifically, Ballmer was referring to targeted ads. Ads on Gmail are targeted based the content of your email, while Hotmail's aren't. What this means is that Google reads thru your email to determine what ads to display. Of course, we have no idea what, if at all, Google is doing with this content beyond creating targeted ads. Google's seen a barrage of publicity about this in the past and I don't expect that to lessen anytime soon. This is perhaps why Microsoft has chosen to avoid the hoopla and opt for a more secure practice... at least, a logical barrier between Microsoft and your email content. Personally, I don't care about the targeted ads. In fact, I think, if you're going to show me ads, you might want to show me an ad I'm likely to click on, but privacy Nazis are probably loving it. All I care about is that it's not stored and/or used without my consent. All that aside, tho, I guess it was nice to see Ballmer actually making a truly factual statement that wasn't really about slamming the competition. The discussion was about ads and his statement about how Google generates ads was completely within reason. Heck, watch it for yourself.

There was a comment in the video about Visual Studio on Mac/Linux. He claimed that there was no plan now, but that it would be evaluated if/when there was a market. Just to chime in, I see it coming. Let Silverlight grow over the next two years and I believe we'll start seeing full cross-platform .NET. After that, we'll see more Microsoft apps that have been at least partially built on .NET be transitioned. The future of Microsoft is .NET. I can already see the day that Windows is build on .NET. Maybe I'm crazy, tho. I'm sure all the C++ guys think I am.

Microsoft Seeking XPS Standardization: What's in XPS?

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:10:00 GMT

So, what is the difference between PDF and XPS? I know the storage format of XPS is based on XML and ZIP technology, which makes the format head-over-heels more "open" than PDF as well as more approachable for us geeks who like to hack documents. For that reason alone, I'm excited about XPS. But that provides nothing for end users, so the question remains... Why do we need a new format?

One thing PDF has today that XPS doesn't is some dynamic capabilities. Of course, this is just a matter of time. Being based on WPF opens XPS to a world of possibilities. On the other hand, I've seen talk about XPS being "safe" because it doesn't contain scripts or macros. I hope this isn't the position Microsoft is taking, but you never know. Either way, I think this is something that has to be added to truly compete with PDF. As-is, you can create forms with XPS, for instance, but have no way to fill them out electronically. Actually, I can see how one might achieve this somewhat easily. Hmmm... There's definitely an opportunity here.

Versioning is another aspect that's been quietly touted. Apparently, Adobe frequently introduces breaking changes into new releases. These have historically broken both software and hardware built to the older spec. I'm not sure how they've gotten away with this for so long, but apparently XPS has an answer to the problem. This is huge for hardware and software vendors.

The last difference I'm aware of is with images. PDFs embed images in a proprietary, lossy format. XPS includes images as they are, in all their high-def glory. Oh yeah, did I mention high-def? As I understand it, XPS has support for HD Photo and just provides all-around better image quality. I know I've noticed this with a few presentations I've saved in both formats.

In my opinion, XPS seems like a great power user upgrade and a decent end user upgrade; but is it really worth the effort Microsoft has ut into it? Doubtful... At least not at this time. I'll be more excited to see v2, which is typically where Microsoft products start to shine.

Open XML

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:10:00 GMT

Most probably know the outcome of the ballot to fast-track the Open XML standard thru ISO approval: it was denied. That isn't the end of it, tho. There are some important facts that should be pointed out. First off, I should explain how the voting process works. To get approved, the ballot must be approved by 2/3 "P members" and 3/4 all voting members. The Open XML ballot fell short of this on both accounts, achieving 53% P member votes and 74% all-up. The next is for the measure to go to the ballot resolution meeting in February 2008, where the members will have an opportunity to change their votes. In order to pass, 5 P members must change their vote from disapproved to approved or all 9 non-voting P members plus 2 disapprovers must all change their votes to approve it. Note that I may be 1 off on these numbers, depending on whether they round up or down in their ballots. The real challenge is meeting the 2/3 vote. The 3/4 vote is all but in-the-bag, needing 1 converter or 3 new voters.

As far as I'm concerned, achieving a 74% vote in favor of Open XML is tremendous; if for no other reason than, it's 74%!! I guess I was expecting a 2/3 vote to pass. Not sure why "P members" are so special, but I'm guessing some green-backs come into play, as they always do in these cases. I am hopeful of the future, tho. From what I saw, there were some good comments coming from both sides. The #1 being the dependence upon proprietary, legacy Microsoft file formats. I honestly didn't know this was included in the spec, but would have to say they should be removed. I feel like removing these would go a long way to making the spec feel like a community standard. Heck, I'd go as far as transferring key patents to ISO to show my interest and desire for full openness. Then again, I don't know what all would be involved with this or its implications. I'm merely looking at this from an objective standpoint. A showing of good faith would mean a lot to the opposition.

Another thing I'd do is officially change the name of the standard to Open XML, removing the "Office" moniker. I'm not sure where this came from, but I've always hated it. The name gives this assuming ownership by Microsoft, care of "Microsoft Office." This isn't what Open XML is about, so let's just remove the point of confusion.

We'll have to wait and see how things go, tho. There were comments about interop with ODF, but I don't think doc compat is necessarily something that should belong in a spec. That might depend on how intrusive it is, tho. As long as extensibility is built in, explicit compat shouldn't be necessary. Thanks to Sun's doing, ODF falls short on both of these counts , which is the main reason Open XML exists. Unfortunately, Microsoft's desire for competitiveness and consumer choice isn't shared. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the tables have turned: Microsoft wants choice , while historic open source supporters, like IBM and Sun, are pushing against the standard for commercial gain . In the long run, I don't think it'll matter. This whole ballot is about speeding up the standards process. Win or lose, the standard will ultimately go thru the entire process. The advantage to fast tracking is for consumers.

Attack of the Surface Wanna-Bes

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:47:00 GMT

I don't think Microsoft ever truly got the respect it deserved for Surface . And now, it seems we have ourselves some competition. We all know what Microsoft is good at: competition. Of course, I can't mention Surface without mentioning the parody. As much as I want to hate it, it was pretty funny. Back to the topic at hand, I can't say I'm surprised to see competition starting to heat up. First on the scene was Rosie by Savant. Of course, taking a look at what Savant does, touchscreen devices, a Surface copycat was halfway done. Then again, they're a long way from meeting the capabilities Surface has. The biggest point of failure I see is that Rosie is just a big touchscreen computer. That's it. Surface is more than that. Specifically, Surface is all about integrating with devices placed on the table. As merely a touchscreen, Rosie doesn't have this. Rosie also seems to lack multi-touch capabilities, as far as I can tell. All this for a hefty $35,000 price tag, notably more than 3 times more than Surface's estimated price. Rosie's not the only other game in town, tho.

The other announcement comes from what is perhaps the most unlikely source, Northrup Grumman , a defense contractor. Then again, you may not be too stunned when you get to the bottom of its purpose. TouchTable has been around for quite a while. After the announcement of Surface, I believe Northrup Grumman is simply looking to monetize on their investment in a new market. The question of how this compares to Surface comes up. I don't have a lot of info on TouchTable, but from what I can tell, this isn't quite the experience people are probably wanting. If you look closely, you'll see the image is projected from above -- look at the man's arm. I'm sorry, but I'm not about to get a "table" I have to install an overhead projector for. Of course, what do you expect from a defense contractor?

All-in-all, I don't see either of these to be much competition, but it will be nice to see more out there. Microsoft isn't planning on releasing Surface to the consumer market initially, but plans have changed since the initial announcement. Because of the immense amount of interest -- I know I've seen requests upon requests pouring in on a daily basis -- Microsoft has decided to speed up the release schedule. I don't know any exact dates, but I'm expecting people to see them in a few hot spots, like casinos, in early 2008. My hopes are to see a cheaper consumer release by the end of 2008. That almost seems undoable, tho. I guess only time will tell... as usual.

Silverlight on Linux

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:39:00 GMT

In a somewhat interesting turn of events, Microsoft has officially launched Silverlight 1.0 with support for Linux. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I expected Linux to be left out forever, but I didn't expect it this soon. Good stuff! What I really thought was newsworthy about this, tho, wasn't that it happened, but that it happened in collaboration with Novell . Not sure if this has anything with the much-debated Microsoft-Novell deal, but I kind of doubt it. I get the impression this is more about Microsoft wanting to provide Linux support and the Mono team already having an implementation . I do wonder how long this collaboration will hold, tho. Not because of either party's interest in that collaboration, but because of the .NET support in Silverlight 1.1. If the collaboration would continue, I can see this growing and possibly even expanding into cross-platform .NET, the exact Mono was created. This wouldn't be the first time Microsoft stepped on its partners. Of course, Miguel de Icaza has mentioned that he'd be happy to see Microsoft pick up .NET on Linux. I don't know how this would go over in the community, tho. Those on the Windows side looking for cross-platform solutions would love it, but those on the Linux side might see it as an anti-competitive strategy. Of course, those who do think that will most likely be the zealots who think anything coming out of Redmond is pure, unadulterated evil. Unfortunately, that would never change.

WL Hotmail Gets More Storage

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:49:00 GMT

I know there's supposed to be a new Windows Live release coming up pretty soon, but apparently someone felt the need to push out some of those Hotmail changes early . With that release come a few things I'm pretty happy about: the ability to skip the Today screen , accept/decline Outlook meeting requests, and more storage (now 5GB). I noticed the changes this past weekend, but thought it might've been a fluke of some sort. I guess not. Of course, one of the features I'm really looking forward to -- the ability to switch between accounts -- is still yet to be released. I will be a happy man when this one is added. I don't know if the release date has been announced yet, so I'm going to keep that to myself, but let's just say we're not too far off.

WL Folders SkyDrive Update

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:03:00 GMT

Windows Live Folders has officially been renamed to SkyDrive. With this, the look and feel has been updated along with a few other changes to enhance the user experience. I'm very glad to see this upgrade, but there's much more to go. I'm waiting for further integration into other WL services and my Windows desktop... a la FolderShare, I'm hoping.

Apple Scrutinized Over [In]Security

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:41:00 GMT

Finally! It's about time Apple's security gets some true scrutiny. Of course, this is only the beginning. The first sign of the Apple security apocalypse could probably be considered the fact that, as of May 2007, Apple has released five sets of security patches for Mac OS X -- three with patch counts in the double-digits and a grand total of over 100 security holes patched in 5 months. Sure, it sounds like a good accomplishment, but the problem is the fact that there were that many holes to begin with. How secure does that sound?

The next sign is the one that I'm very glad to see, which I think will bring more doubt Apple's way... Within hours of releasing Safari for Windows, Apple's web browser, the security community came alive with reports of vulnerabilities (1 , 2 , 3 ). And no, these weren't Windows vulnerabilities. Beyond that, don't let the "beta" moniker fool you. Most of these vulnerabilities are true to the existing Safari release on Mac OS X, as well. And we can't forget to mention the claim that, "Apple engineers designed Safari to be secure from day one." Let's ponder that for a second... Some of my favorite quotes include: "These [vulnerabilities] are popping out like hotcakes" and "...which rock did Safari developers hide under for the past 8 years or so?" That latter remark was made about a vulnerability which has been known since 1997, to give you a frame of reference for the quality of the security that was "designed since day one." Luckily, Apple was pretty quick to fix these vulnerabilities -- supposedly fixing in days what usually takes them weeks or months to fix. However, despite their best efforts to plug the leaks, their newly "secured" release came with its own set of holes . When will it stop? Perhaps Apple's engineers should take a course at Microsoft on the Security Development Lifecycle (book ).

Perhaps the highlight of my day is when I listened to Mac Break Weekly episode 45 when Leo Laporte said, "you're now in a Windows environment and all the hackers are looking at you," and, "maybe [the] people [who] have been saying Apple is secure by obscurity might be right." Exactly! This is what I've always said, so it's nice to see someone who is perhaps from the other side acknowledge it -- actually, Leo is pretty good at playing the line. The truth of the matter is that the tools security researchers to find these vulnerabilities are built for Windows, not Mac OS X. So, of course nobody's going to find the vulnerabilities until they cross that road over into the Windows world. This just makes me curious as to whether hackers will shift focus to Mac OS X since the security veil has been lifted. I have to say I think Apple is most likely ripe for the picking. I'm not saying Mac OS X users are wide-open, I'm just saying they have a false sense of security and it's about time that's come to light. What was really funny about the MBW episode was that just about everyone shut up when Leo started talking. I couldn't help but smile at that.

The only thing left to mention is that this is more fuel for Dino Dai Zovi's fire : "I have found...security to be much better overall in Vista than Mac OS X 10.4." He's not the only one, tho. It looks like David Maynor is saying the same thing : "Windows Vista is more secure than Mac OS X 10.4.8." Perhaps the best part is the follow-on sentence, "Anybody that tells you anything different should immediately be treated with the same disdain as finding a parking ticket on your car." To put it another way, he later states, "[Mac OS X] is definitely NOT as fundamentally secure as Vista." David also mentioned another quote, but I'm not sure if it's his or someone else's...

Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.

With all that said, I do have to say that I'm not cheering on flailing security. I merely think Mac OS X users need to be aware of the fact that they aren't as secure as they think they are. Yes, Mac OS X users are less likely to get viruses and what not, but that's merely because of the fact that there are more Windows users, so Windows is more "profitable" to attack. Hell, I'd even say the same about Linux. I'm not saying that Linux is insecure, but it's not getting the same attention Windows gets, so I just don't think it's easy to compare each system's security. Too many people make blanket statements they can't justify.

Microsoft and Open Source

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:15:00 GMT

As a part of my never-ending backlog of interesting posts I've saved off, I finally took the time to read Jon Galloway's post regarding Microsoft and open source, Why Microsoft Can't Ship Open Source Code . I have to say I whole-heartedly agree with Jon's position. As nice as it would be to dump some of the disregarded apps included in Windows (i.e. Notepad and Paint) for their open source counterparts (i.e. Notepad2 and Paint.NET), it's just not feasible for Microsoft. I can't blame them at all. If you've ever wondered why Microsoft doesn't include open source software in Windows, this is a great place to start. I imagine there's more to the story than this, but the position Jon explains is very logical. Well-put, Jon.

Microsoft Surface

Michael Flanakin — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:45:00 GMT

A few days ago, Microsoft announced something that's been in the works for over a year, Surface. In its bare essentials, this is basically a touch-screen display on a table. Of course, there's a lot more to it than that. With a multi-touch display that can recognize items placed on it, the possibilities are tremendous. There's always room to grow, tho. And, with a hefty price tag of $5-10,000, don't expect to see this in any of your friends' homes any time soon. Most attribute this to a step in the direction of the interactive computer display used in the Minority Report movie. You should check it out at the official Microsoft Surface website (linked above). There are three short videos that'll summarize it for you pretty succinctly. If, on the other hand, you want more encompassing coverage, check out this video. There are a ton of pictures and videos strewn throughout the web, so if you want to see more, there's plenty to find. There are about half-a-dozen apps in the Channel 10 video and each are interesting in their own way. A few are simplistic, but there are some which could revolutionize how we live our day-to-day lives. Then again, that price tag comes into play here, so we'll have to wait a bit until we start to see some real apps out in the wild.

My New Search Engine

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 18 May 2007 00:57:00 GMT

Ok, not really new, since I've been using Live Search for almost a year, now, but I recently came across this Live Search spin-off. Essentially, it's a Windows Live mash-up. Well, the beginnings of one. I have to admit I like it, but it needs some help. First and foremost, I wish it'd pull in the rest of the WL look and feel. They started to get the basics, but left out some of the dynamic features. This kind of makes me question who created it. The page says Microsoft, but anybody can write that. Either way, I like the intent. Hopefully, it'll be expanded over the coming months.

Update (11/23/2007): The aforementioned link no longer works. Going directly to the domain redirects to Live Search, now.

Lundquist on Microsoft's Web Initiatives

Michael Flanakin — Sat, 12 May 2007 20:21:00 GMT

Eric Lundquist speaks to Ray Ozzie's description of Google as the "command line of the internet" in an old eWeek article. He suggests that this isn't quite true, arguing that the simplicity of search is nowhere near the same as the complexity of the command line. I have to say I agree with Ozzie. The truth of the matter is that search is the closest thing to the command line when it comes to the web. You type in what you want to do (or look for) and the search engine reacts. There's a deeper reasoning behind Ozzie's comment, but I won't get into that. I will say there's a lot to come and the next year will bring some of that to life.

Taking the general topic of the web a little closer to home, Lundquist poses 10 issues he believes must be addressed for Microsoft to truly compete in today's -- and tomorrow's -- web-focused world...

Integration of online and offline offerings. Lundquist is definitely on-target when he mentions the gap between the two. Microsoft's missing the boat big time, right now. I'm very faithful that it will all come together, but it's taking too long, in my opinion. He also makes a direct reference to Google's productivity apps as "enterprise-level" here, but I think he's way off on that. These apps may be enterprise-scalable, but are far from enterprise-functional. There's a big difference. Google's a long way from getting there.
Browsers are the new OS. Lundquist asks why Vista apps is being stressed more than browser apps. Let's face it, Microsoft is a commercial entity. Selling Vista makes money. Let's put two and two together, here. Some of this has changed with the new Silverlight announcements, but don't think that'll stop the push for applications to be updated for Vista and beyond.
Google's offline weaknesses. Lundquist suggests that Microsoft should play on Google's weakness in offline data. I understand what Lundquist is saying, but I don't think this is a good strategy. Google's mantra was to "do one thing and do it good." Well, they did that with web search. With that popularity, they've tried to dig into other realms. The unfortunate problem there is that web search isn't the same as the other areas Google's tried to dig into. Sure, they've created some intriguing services and applications, but they aren't nearly as well thought out as their web search offering. Hell, they can't even get enterprise search right. Google hasn't been very good at taking in all the angles, so their weaknesses speak for themselves. If Microsoft steadily pointed fingers, that would simply back-fire.
Online security. Lundquist wants Ozzie to explain the Windows Live security initiative. While I would never argue against it, I think this is more of something that needs to be proven, rather than described. Time will tell. All I really have to say about it is that the struggling OneCare service isn't doing a very good job of proving Microsoft's strong emphasis on security. As usual, I think this will improve significantly over time.
Identity. Passport, and now Windows Live Id, is great an all, but I wish Microsoft would pick up and support something like Open Id. Lundquist just wants to know what Microsoft has to offer here and, well, I think that's a good question.
Standards compliance. This is an area where Microsoft has been getting better and better at. I think we'll see this continue over the next few years and, eventually, I think we'll even surpass others in the same space, being more compliant than them. Of course, this all depends on consumers' desire for such compliance.
Internal cross-pollinization. Knowing how online and offline teams are working together to build more integrated environments is something we're not seeing from the outside. Oh, wait... not from the inside, either. Actually, I know it's happening, but the vision of how that's happening should be shared a bit more. Microsoft's been good with transparency over the past few years, but they've also been careful about what they've shared due to the problems with Vista. The ideal balance has yet to be achieved. Who knows how long that'll take to perfect.
Future of Windows Live. That's a damn good question. I can try to foresee some possibilities, but it's wide open. The first year or two has been all about defensive strategy as Microsoft plays catch-up. We all know Microsoft is best when in attack mode, tho. I truly see this as a turning point. I expect big things from the Windows Live platform. I just hope Microsoft will deliver the next generation experience it's capable of delivering.
Timeliness. As I mentioned before, Lundquist is right on here. Microsoft has had a problem with over-envisioning the capabilities in its next gen products and services. I think the Windows Live platform has been better at that, with releases every 3-6 months -- I don't know what the actual release schedule is, but I think it's quarterly. The problem is that this isn't publicized. I'd like to see what is pushed so I can take advantage of the new features as they come online. Otherwise, the products and services just seem stagnant, like others have the reputation of being.
Names and faces. Lundquist would apparently like to see more from the likes of those closer to the trenches than Ballmer and Ozzie. I can't blame him with this, but I don't know how much I care. Personally, give me the info. I could care less who it comes from. I may be off on what he's really getting at, but I'd rather hear the news than know who's behind it.

Making Sense of Mix '07 Announcements

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 01 May 2007 10:58:00 GMT

Well, I was off on my guesses (1 , 2 ) at what was going to be announced at Mix '07 . In the same breath, I'm kind of disappointed. Here's what I've seen...

Astoria is a new project to provide a service-based view of data over HTTP using XML and JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) . This is definitely a good thing, don't get me wrong, but not really a big surprise. If you ask me, this is just another part of the overall Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) vision.

Jasper is another new project , announced by the ADO.NET team , which aims to simplify application development by providing a built-in data layer. Granted, I haven't seen anything about this, but I severely question it. Sure, it'll be better than what most people are doing, but is it enough? I can't say for sure without digging into it; but I'd look at it pretty hard before assuming it is. I like to have a lot of control over my applications, so building a data layer is just worth it, for me. I'm fine with the additional time it takes, which isn't all that much in my opinion, because it allows me to customize it to meet project-specific needs easily. This is by far the most flexible way to go. Of course, the problem is the amount of time it takes. Like I said, we'll have to see. I'm interested, but skeptical.

Apparently there's an early edition of Blend 2 available which supports Silverlight. This was an obvious progression, but I didn't expect it to happen this quickly. Heck, I didn't even know Blend 1 was released... ~~oh, wait, it hasn't!?~~ While completely understandable, it's kind of an odd move. Let's face it. Will you buy Blend knowing Blend 2 is on its heels? I'm sure there will be some sort of promotion for all Blend 1 owners; but that hasn't been announced, yet. I just hope it's better than the typical upgrade cost. In the end, I'm thinking this is probably going to be more of a 1.1 release than a 2.0 release, but a necessary one nonetheless. My hopes are that they'll go for a small upgrade fee of $23 or so, like they did for the VS 2002 to 2003 upgrade. Only time will tell.

Dynamic language support has been made official; but again, expected. I will say I didn't expect this to be a separate runtime environment, but I can imagine there might be some technical issues limiting the dynamic nature on top of the CLR. I'm interested to see how these two ciblings grow up together. In the same breath, I'm curious as to the number of different versions of .NET and the CLR. We're quickly approaching half a dozen, if not more.

While I was thinking Silverlight itself could be the "big announcement," it wasn't. I wasn't too far off tho. Three Silverlight announcements came out: (1) Silverlight will support .NET on all it's supported clients, most notably including non-IE browsers and Mac; (2) there's already an alpha release for this; and, (3) Windows Live has a new Silverlight Streaming service to give you 4GB of streaming content. Ok, this last one is definitely a marketing move, but one you can benefit from, if you have content to push. But I do have to touch on the fact that, before Silverlight 1.0 is out, we've got preview bits for a follow-on release. This is unheard of. I don't think I ever remember seeing this happen with any other companies. Not that I'm saying Microsoft is a great company simply because of this, but I do think it's a strong testament to the direction the company wants to move in. This will be very interesting in the coming year as Silverlight starts to push into the Flash space. Then again, Flash has only pierced a niche market. I'm very confident that Silverlight will surpass that small portion and make it into the true web application space. Heck, I'm already seeing viable options for Silverlight in a number of apps I'm privvy to.

So, the Silverlight on Mac announcement was probably one of the most surprising to people, as it seems. When a friend first said, "CLR will be supported on multiple OSes," I got very excited. Then, when he clarified that it was within Silverlight, I just responded, "Oh. I already knew that." I mean, seriously, wasn't that known? Maybe I just assumed it. I'm not trying to take away from it; I definitely think it's a fantastic progression. I just expected this. Nonetheless, there was some good stuff that came out of Mix. I ultimately decided against going this year, but I may have to rethink that for next year.

Unofficial Microsoft Blogroll

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:15:00 GMT

A while back, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer posted a list of Microsoft blogs . While I cannot attest to the completeness of the list, I definitely appreciate the work put in to create it. So much so, that I've created aggregations for each of the groups (as of the 3/27/2007 update).

There are a five more groups of related, non-Microsoft feeds, but I didn't create pipes for them. I can, if someone thinks it'd be worthwhile, tho. In the meantime, enjoy!

Expression Tools on MSDN

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 02:16:00 GMT

I called it! The Expression tools will be available on MSDN . I figured this was an easy one to guess, seeing as tho the Expression suite is Microsoft's first attempt at design tools. I have to say that I'm not impressed, but I have faith that future releases will be much better. I still want to play with them more, but just haven't had much time. Nonetheless, I think their availability on MSDN will make them much more likely to be adopted. The only thing I'm wondering now is, what will the big announcement at Mix '07 be? Hmm... There are still a number of things I can think of, but my curiosity is even more piqued given this turn of events.

Announcement at Mix '07

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:20:00 GMT

Everyone who knows about Mix '07 most likely knows that we're expecting a big announcement. I have to admit that I don't know what it is, but I have a couple of guesses. If I had to pick one, I'd have to say it'll be the announcement that the Expression tools will be available on MSDN. This has been a complaint I've heard from countless sources and, I honestly don't think Microsoft will drive too much adoption without this. I understand Microsoft's logic behind not putting the tools on MSDN, but I think it makes more sense to put it there.

I will say some of the talk I've heard leads me to believe my guess isn't big enough of an announcement. Trying to think of what else might be on the horizon is kind of hard, tho, seeing how open Microsoft is. Perhaps the biggest announcement I could see would be the release of Visual Studio codename "Orcas". In the same breath, I don't see this being released at a mixed developer/designer event; especially considering this event has a lot of designer-friendly content. With that, I'm left with the announcement of WPF/e and/or a friendly WPF/e design/development tool. If that's it, all I can say is I hope they come up with a nice, "cool" product name. I wish they'd just fall back on the codename, Sparkle. Beyond these ideas, I can come up with a few small possibilities, but nothing that is too big of a deal. I ultimately decided to skip out on this conference, so I won't be there to get the announcement, but I'm excited to find out what it is.

FoxPro Moves On

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:27:00 GMT

I have to say that this is something I didn't see coming. Microsoft is planning to stop officially supporting FoxPro and migrate the project over to the open source community . I'm very happy to see this happening. If you ask me, this should've been the approach for VB classic, but I can partially see the reasoning behind not doing that. Either way, this is a bold move for the company everyone loves to hate. Official support will be cutting back in 2010 and finally dropping the line in 2015. That's 8 years to get support from Microsoft. Of course, just because Microsoft isn't supporting it doesn't mean it won't thrive in the community. I'm sure partners will pick up that ball and provide an excellent level of support for both the open source project and as services to those in need. Kudos to Microsoft on this one. I'm glad to see such a move.

MSN vs. Windows Live

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:44:00 GMT

I know there's been some confusion around why Microsoft has two consumer-focused services, MSN and Windows Live. A lot of people seem to think Windows Live is a rebranding of MSN, which isn't true. Let me say that I'm not in the Online Services Group, the parent organization MSN and Windows Live fall under, so this shouldn't be considered a Microsoft's official position. I'm merely sharing observations I've come to realize over time. From what I've gathered in the past, MSN is Microsoft's answer to Yahoo and AOL and Windows Live is Microsoft's answer to Google. This, of course, is just the top level and doesn't really speak to the purpose and intention of each platform. Perhaps a better way to think about it is MSN is Microsoft-driven and Windows Live is user-driven. When I say "Microsoft-driven," don't take that to mean Microsoft is creating or modifying the content. Just like all reputable news vendors, online or off, MSN is Microsoft's medium to share content with the world. I don't know who exactly decides on what information is shown on MSN, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's probably a third-party. Microsoft is a huge fan of divvying out responsibilities to third-party experts and, believe it or not, isn't trying to stick their hands into everyone's business. Again, I don't know for sure, but this seems to be the most logical mode of operation to me. Windows Live, on the other hand, puts the user in the driver seat. You see what you want and only what you want. The idea is that, if you want it, you'll find it, create it, and/or share it. The analogy I saw recently, which spurred this post, was MSN is for those who want content pushed to them and Windows Live is for those who want to pull the content they're interested in.

MacWorld Plays on Words... 9 Years Later

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 20:35:00 GMT

MacWorld has an article that brings a 9 year-old email to light... with a twist . The article tries to imply that Bill Gates wanted to shutdown the Mac Office product in an effort to hurt Apple and that the only positive to having it around was to test new features on the unsuspecting user-base. Plain and simple, Bill Gates made no such comments... not even in part. Ben Waldman did, however, but not in the context MacWorld would have you believe. Reading the email, it seems as tho Waldman is simply trying to sell his ideas in a way any salesperson would: he makes comments he assumes will be pique the interest by his readers. The fact is, if I saw an email like this today, I'd talk to the person offline and tell them not to do that again. Is there any record of this? No, of course not. This is merely an attempt to put a negative light on Microsoft, even if the best they can do is pull up something almost a decade old. C'mon, MacWorld! Is that the best you can do?

ODF Debate

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:40:00 GMT

iTWire pulls together its less-than-factual reporting skills together to get some attention by posting an article claiming standardization of the Open Document Format (ODF) is a threat to Microsoft -- because this is the only one you can find on the web nowadays First, off, I have a big problem with ODF and the stance of its backers: they are professing the need for one and only one standard in this area when they know the format doesn't fit all circumstances. For instance, ODF does not have a way to embed custom data, if I remember correctly. This is one of the [many] big advantages to Open XML, which is used in Office 2007. The article goes on to claim that Open XML is a proprietary format, which is absolutely not true. In fact, Open XML is an Ecma standard . Yes, that's an international standards body; the same standards body that standardized C# and the .NET Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) . The last thing I'm going to say about this [for now] is that Microsoft acknowledges the fact that Open XML may not fit every situation and is actually promoting choice here. Sound familiar? This is what the open source community has been saying for years. Now, it seems the tables have turned. Microsoft is suggesting choice is good and typical open source backers are saying you, the consumer, should have no choice. As proof of Microsoft's dedication to choice, there's an add-in to add ODF support to Word . When has the ODF community done anything to support consumer choice?

Open Source at Microsoft

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 02:45:00 GMT

A recent post on Slashdot, Microsoft Plays Up Open Source , discusses Microsoft's recent paper discussing PostgreSQL on Windows . The post asks why Microsoft is promoting a competing product -- namely PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server. I can understand the confusion, but the message has been expressed fairly well by the Port 25 team. This seems to be a case of people confusing their perceptions of Microsoft with the reality of today's Microsoft. I'm not saying Microsoft doesn't have its moments, but it's not the same company it was 15 years ago. If you ask me, this isn't about databases, it's about opening up to the open source community and helping them solve a problem that isn't discussed much: open source software on Windows, all other products aside. Believe it or not, Microsoft can do that -- today's Microsoft does do that.

Show Us the Code

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 02:09:00 GMT

I figure most people that would end up reading this know about the Microsoft-Novell partnership and how countless Linux supporters are up in arms about it. First off, I have to say I don't think it's a big deal. I honestly don't see anything wrong with the deal. Both Microsoft and Novell have their reasons for going into the deal, of course, but I don't think anything's as bad as the Linux supporters would have you believe. Probably the most notable problem they have with it is Steve Ballmer's claim that Linux code infringes on Microsoft patents. Personally, I don't think Ballmer should've said this, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. I can't say one way or another, so I'm not going to get into that debate; but I definitely think it's possible. Apparently, things have become so bad that Linux supporters feel the need to campaign against Microsoft [once again]. ShowUsTheCode.com is directed specifically at Steve Ballmer, as opposed to Microsoft in general, and pretty much demands that he prove his claims that Linux infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property (IP). I have to say that this is pretty ridiculous. I don't have a problem with the concept, but Microsoft won't respond -- not because there is no proof, but because of what I see as an unprofessional, fairly hostile attempt to scrutinize Microsoft in a very similar, if not the same, way BadVista.org has. The only difference is the Bad Vista campaign is more anti-competitive than anything. That's all besides the point. Free and open source software supporters have always been quick to point fingers but tend to fall short of proving their worth. I am an open source supporter when and where it makes sense, but the actions of the individuals involved is just sad. Two other reasons I don't see Microsoft responding to the letter is that it would essentially be sinking to the level of these mindless zealots and it's just not feasible. How many Linux distros are there? How much code does that really encompass? Microsoft would get next to nothing for scouring code for IP violations, so why would they even try? Sure, bragging rights might be nice, but all it would do is force the feable minded individuals who back these sorts of things to push the envelope even further into a never-ending bickering session between the two until someone decides to be an adult about it and just stops. As a matter of fact, by not responding, this is exactly what Microsoft is doing. This reminds me of an image I saw sometime back. It's definitely not politically correct, but it fits well here...

Month of PHP Bugs

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:32:00 GMT

In the spirit of the week/month of Oracle and Apple bugs, there's now a plan for a month of PHP bugs effort. I just find this interesting. As I mentioned before, I'd really like to see a similar effort for .NET, SQL Server, or any Microsoft product. Everyone claims Microsoft products to to be insecure, but the reason most of the "month of bugs" efforts come out is because development teams aren't managing their security issues. I don't think there have been many complaints about Microsoft not managing their security issues. Now, don't take this as me saying there are no bugs in Microsoft software -- every software has bugs. I'm merely saying I'd like to see if a month of bugs is even possible with the products Microsoft has run thru its Security Development Lifecycle process.

Windows Vista++ on the Books

Michael Flanakin — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:54:00 GMT

Looks like Microsoft has made it semi-official that the next release of Windows will be in 2009 . This is in-line with statements I've made before (1 , 2 , 3 ). I'm sure a number of people will be expecting delays, but I don't expect to see much of a delay. There might be short delays, but I don't see that being any more than 6 months. While I don't know what the exact plans are, at this time, I think Microsoft has something to prove with this release and it'll do everything it can to get the promised feature-set out on time, if not early.

.NET Naming

Michael Flanakin — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:18:00 GMT

This post has been a long time coming. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The whole issue people have with WinFX being renamed to .NET 3.0 is absolutely ridiculous. Mark Treadwell made a comment that the .NET Framework should be the same version as the CLR. This is just ignorant. I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. They are completely different animals. I will say that keeping the versions inline would make it easier to understand, but it doesn't make sense when you take versioning practices into account. I don't mean to pick on Mark; his is just one of the many complaining about the change. If I would've been in control of the .NET 3.0 release, I'd have included other features besides WinFX, but I'm not. The fact that these additional features were the only thing added seems to be part of the confusion, as far as I can tell.

While I completely agree with the naming of the release, I don't necessarily agree with the tactics Microsoft used in getting it out. In my personal opinion, it seems as tho the release is based on timing. .NET 3.0 is part of Windows Vista, therefore, it needed to be completed by the time of the Vista RTM. If Vista wasn't a factor, I think we'd have seen it wrapped up with the next version of Visual Studio. And guess what! It would've been called .NET 3.0! Wow, imagine that. A major release of new functionality to the framework and they up the major version number? That's unimaginable.

Beyond .NET 3.0, there are a lot of references to .NET "3.5." I think people need to understand that "3.5" is not the version it will be released as. Instead, it's an identifier or a variable, if you will. The exact version number is not known at this point and Microsoft gave the release that monicker in an effort to discuss it. In my mind, I see this as Microsoft acknowledging that there might be an interim update. For instance, there may be changes wrapped up into a 3.1 release with the .NET "3.5" release with AJAX and LINQ being 3.2. Who knows what'll happen. I honestly doubt there will be an interim release, but I don't think Microsoft wanted to commit to that at the time it was originally used. We'll see. Either way, I think people are getting all bent out of shape for no reason. Microsoft has done a very good job at versioning its tools appropriately, if you ask me.

Group Shot

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 23:19:00 GMT

I was listening to Windows Weekly and Paul Thurrott mentioned that he was very interested in Group Shot , but claimed it was a Windows Ultimate Extra . As far as I know, it's not. Group Shot is a Microsoft Research project and is freely downloadable to all. It might be an Ultimate Extra in the future, but I kind of doubt it. Honestly, I just wanted to share the link in case others haven't seen it. Group Shot allows you to take good portions of multiple photos and combine them. The typical example is taking family/group photos where each photo has someone blinking, looking somewhere else, or whatever. Using Group Shot, you can take the good parts of each individual photo to create a new photo with everyone looking the right way. Check it out; it's definitely a nice tool.

Microsoft Update and Windows Vista Forced Reboot Goodness (!?)

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 12:43:00 GMT

Microsoft Update does it again... I start my laptop this morning for the usual email/blog check before I head to the customer site and what do you know, the computer decides to just reboot. No question, no warning, just a reboot. Of course, I made the assumption this was due to an update. I guess the automatic update downloaded last night while I was on, but didn't install until this morning when I started the computer. Then again, I am just guessing. Not a big deal, we're used to these kinds of things, right? Well, maybe not...

When the computer started to come back up, it went thru the normal routine of starting up, configuring updates, and logging in; but this is where I was happily surprised. Instead of my normal login process that opened 2 or 3 programs, all of the programs I previously had open were re-opened. Not just that, they were opened in the same (or at least near the same) state they were when Windows rebooted. Of course, my initial aggravation with the reboot has now subsided and I'm just simply pleased and amazed at the fact that i can now continue with what I was doing and, more specifically, finish reading the email that was originally open and now re-opened for me. Of course, I haven't tested this theory -- and don't think I'd really want to -- with a lot of other apps, like IE with multiple tabs open, but I'm sure the results would be the same. My guess is the system now saves its state as if it were going to hibernate. No matter how it's done, thank you Microsoft! Great feature!!!

Searching for Philanthropy

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 01:27:00 GMT

I thought this interesting when I saw it, so I figured I'd share it. Whenever you search at Click for the Cause , Microsoft will donate to ninemillion.org , an organization dedicated to improving the education of refugee children.

Is Microsoft an Innovator?

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:42:00 GMT

I mentioned this in the past, but I had to touch on this on its own because it's a huge problem. There is a somewhat common outlook that Microsoft isn't an innovator. This is hugely incorrect. While throwing money around doesn't say anything about what is produced, Microsoft puts more money towards research than any other IT company. That, in itself, should speak to the importance of innovation to Microsoft and its future. Microsoft Research recently passed its 15th birthday . If this is something you're interested in, check out the video that sums up those 15 years. Of course, this doesn't speak enough towards the level of effort put into the company's research arm.

Here's a big annoyance to me... surprise, surprise, Vista is being looked at as a Mac clone. Why? Good question. I asked a Mac fan why he feels this way and he pointed out two things: the desktop background and Mac's widgets. Later, he pointed to the somewhat popular video that tries to point out similarities. That video pointed out desktop search, 3D chess, triangles as directory hierarchy markers (instead of +/- icons), the calendar/scheduling program, and the photo gallery. All of this is ridiculous. First off, I have to say that Apple didn't invent any of these concepts. If I had the time and cared enough, I'd track down the initial use of each of these features and I'd put money on the fact that none of them would be Apple. Apple is more of a design/usability company than a feature/capability innovator. I'm not going to get into defending against these ridiculous claims, but I can. These features don't even make up a significant portion of the operating system. Anyone who bases their opinion off of these "examples" is an idiot... including the New York Times guy. I don't remember his name, but I don't care enough to find out.

With all that said, I'm not saying Microsoft doesn't have room to grow. The most notable innovation of late is probably going to be the Office ribbon. I have to say I love it. I had my doubts, but it's a fantastic change that will definitely make life easier for everyone. The only problems I've heard of is transitioning from the old, menu-based structure to the ribbon layout. Speaking of this, we should see similar changes in the next version or two of Windows (1 , 2 , 3 ), which I'm excited about.

PDF as an Open Standard

Michael Flanakin — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:25:00 GMT

In what I see as an effort to defend its PDF document format against Microsoft's XPS format, Adobe is looking to make PDF an open standard . An interesting move. Granted, this is just my opinion, but I think companies are going this route in an attempt to bring back the old Microsoft stereotype regarding its lack of openness. I don't think that'll ever happen, tho. Microsoft is one of the most transparent companies around, these days. Seriously consider that statement. Think about some of the top tech companies: Microsoft, IBM, Apple, Google, Sun, and Yahoo (I know there are more, but these are my top picks). Microsoft probably shares more information on internal workings than any. IBM is probably the top-dog when considering use of open source; but let's not forget that open source does not equal transparent ethics and operations. Apple is the god of secrecy and has no foreseeable plans to change that. Surprise is good every once in a while, but this is one reason why I hate Apple as a company -- they come up with some nice stuff, but I have no faith in their direction. Speaking of direction, Google is all over the board. Most say Google is a young Microsoft. In the same breath, Google is making a lot of the same mistakes Microsoft made in its early days. This just shows the immaturity of the company. Please don't take this offensively, I'm just saying the company is young and has a lot to learn. Google is perceived as the "good guy" by a lot of people, but I don't think that's necessarily factual. Good service doesn't equate to good ethics. Google has a lot to proove outside of its good search tools. At least the company has been more transparent than Apple, but anyone can do that. Sun and Yahoo are in about the same boat as Google, in my opinion. None of them shares their plans or internal workings that much, except for marketing reasons. Anyway, I can go on and on about this, but you get the idea. This is, of course, just my personal opinion. Each of these companies has its own approach to winning in the market, but I just don't see the same transparency I do as with Microsoft. Anyway, I'm way off topic...

Back to the PDF/XPS discussion, the funny thing is, I thought XPS was supposed to be an open standard. I'm not sure if I read that somewhere, I'm confusing it with another standard Microsoft is working on, or if I'm just plain crazy. My vote goes on a combination of all three.

Win a $25,000 Computer Lab

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 02:30:00 GMT

I know quite a few teachers, so when I saw this, I knew I had to send it out. Apparently, Microsoft is having a contest at 34 tech stores throughout the continental US where it's giving away 34 $25,000 computer labs and 136 XBoxes. Totalling just short of a million dollars, the contest is aimed at K-12 faculty and students and their families interested in buying Vista.

Amusing Thought for the Day: Windows on Linux

Michael Flanakin — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 23:40:00 GMT

Don't ask why or how this came up, but with the talk about Windows redux (1 , 2 , 3 ), I had an interesting thought: imagine Windows being rewritten to run on the Linux kernel. Don't get me wrong, I don't think this would ever happen, but could you imagine? The OS wars would almost be completely naught. You'd have the Linux family, which are all having their own internal battles today; Mac, which is based on Unix; and Windows, the mack-daddy (based on usage), would take the same approach Mac did with OSX, whether based on Linux or Unix, the results would be the same.

Linux advocates would feel like they've won, in a sense, because Linux would then become the most used kernel by far; however, we all know the cost model wouldn't change, so then the only difference would be between the user experience and proprietary software. With this, Microsoft would have to bring .NET to the Linux world, which would completely consume the major portion of Mono. By this time, I imagine the majority of the Windows-specific features and core applications (i.e. Office) would be implemented in .NET, which is what I believe they're moving towards, anyway -- not 100% of the code, but as much as makes sense at whatever pace makes sense. Java would see an even more drastic decrease in usage because .NET would see more "multiplatform" benefits. Honestly, there's so much you could speculate with such an extreme move. All you can really do is laugh at the idea.

Tech Year in Review: Media Devices, OSs, and AOL

Michael Flanakin — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 23:07:00 GMT

I just listened to a recent This Week in Tech cast, The Year in Review . There were several things that were discussed I wanted to talk about. I have to say all of the TWiT casts tend to irk me in one small way or another because just about everyone on them seems to be one small step short of being an Apple fanboy. Nonetheless, there are some interesting discussions that go on...

As usual, the Zune was hated on. One thing I think is funny is that Apple fanboys tend to talk down on the fact that there's a brown Zune. I have to admit that I don't like the brown Zune. If I had interchangable covers, I might be willing to get one; but outside of that, I doubt it. Most people say that the brown Zune is much better in person and the majority of those say it's the best of the three primary colors. I haven't seen it in person, so I can't say. Back to the TWiT discussion, they did say that most people who're buying into the Zune are doing so more for what will come rather than what it is today. In part, I can agree with that. While my iPod experience is limited, I never found the devices interesting enough to throw money at one and I think the Zune will ultimately be a force to be reckoned with. With that, I expect it to take some time, tho. If Microsoft releases a wider range of device form factors that target different niches, they'll have much more success; but I expect the Zune to hit 25% market share by mid-2008.

While I'm ranting about what fanboys these guys are, I must say they actually talked nice about Windows Vista. One person said most Windows users weren't impressed. I have to say I haven't met one Windows user who thought that way. The only negative comments I've gotten with respect to Vista are from Mac users who don't have much (if any) experience with Vista. I'm not saying Vista is revolutionary, but it is a must-have advancement for Windows. I think anyone who looks at it will find that it's a worthwhile, much needed improvement on many levels.

One of the predictions for 2007 was that this year would be the year for the three-headed OS war. MacOS is and has been a viable consumer OS for quite some time. Now, with better positioning on standard hardware and with a Unix core, the OS is even better off... again, for consumers. I don't think Mac is ready for enterprise usage. Not that the OS can't survive, but I don't see any major organization switching from Windows to Mac even if it was completely free. Mac doesn't have anything near the enterprise management features of Windows. I'd like to see some details on such a transition, but don't ever expect to. Linux, on the other hand, has a different niche. Linux is for gear-heads who want the most productive "feel." I say "feel" as opposed to feel because command lines aren't always more productive. That's besides the point, tho. I've ventured the way of Linux on several occasions and get so aggravated at the waste of time to do somewhat menial tasks that should be simple. From what I've seen in the few Linux implementations I've played with, Linux is going to a lot more than one year to get any true capability to take over the corporate or consumer desktop. Again, this isn't because it's not capable, but because it's still too damn hard to do simple tasks. Techies can figure it out, sure, but we aren't the average user. Why do you think people like Mac? Part of Mac's appeal is its oversimplification of some tasks; the other major part is that it looks pretty. Both of these things are nowhere to be found in the Linux world... at least as far as I've seen, anyway. If I had to throw out some random numbers based on no real conecpt of what percentages are today, I'd say Linux usage might increase a few percentage points and Mac usage will probably get into the low 10's. I also see a great many new PCs coming out with Windows Vista and, poised to take on the major post-Vista changes, I expect both Linux and Mac numbers to drop in 2008; especially as iPod sales start to decline, which I expect to start late this year.

Perhaps the most exciting topic discussed was the idea of AOL's acquisition. When this came up, one word came to mind: Google. Of course, this is the same thing the TWiT guys were thinking. AOL would be a more than perfect complement to Google's arsenal. Google has the search strong-hold, but I don't think its other features have much usage outside of the heavily tech savvy crowd. Taking over AOL would give them unprecedented (for them) access to the desktop in a very new area for them -- the "average" (and lower) user. Google started with techies and worked its way down from there. This was a perfect approach; especially as a search provider. Think back to where you learned about Google from and I guarantee you it was ultimately from a techie -- who am I kidding, only techies are going to read this Anyway, an AOL purchase would see massive changes. First and foremost, IE would be changed out with Firefox. Second to come would be the extensive use of Google tools in all areas of AOL. The major ones being web and desktop search and Google Talk/AIM merger (or at least connected networks w/ shared friends); but don't think Google wouldn't take this the extra mile by including a "free productivity suite" in AOL. Introducing this to AOL's userbase would be more than ideal for Google. Again, I have to stress that Google's top-down proliferation mixed with AOL's years of bottom-feeding are the perfect match made in heaven.

One person said that, if Google did purchase AOL, Microsoft would look into purchasing Yahoo; however, Yahoo would strive for individuality. While I understand this point of view, Google can get away with an AOL buyout; however, I don't think Microsoft could get away with a Yahoo buyout. While AOL has the lowest denominator, Yahoo shares some of that along with more of the "average" userbase. This didn't come up in the cast, but an AOL-Yahoo merger would rule the world of the lower 2/3 of the interent userbase. It's just too bad they wouldn't make any money.

Oh, let me explain Microsoft's current position with respect to Google, AOL, and Yahoo. Well, first off, I don't think AOL is in the game very much; but I do know they're into more than I know about -- always important to know what you don't know There's been a lot of confusion around why Microsoft has MSN and Live.com; but, in actuality, the answer is pretty simple: Microsoft competes on more levels than Google, Yahoo, or AOL alone. MSN competes with Yahoo for the users who like news. In the cast, Leo asked why people still use MSN. Well Leo, that's why. They don't want the simplicity of a blank screen, they want news. Their web world revolves around news content. Live tries to get into this game with their custom homepage, but that's more of a techie feature, if you ask me, and maps bet to Google's personalized homepage. While we're on the topic of Live, we all know it's a Google compete. Live Spaces is a MySpace and Yahoo compete. Soapbox is a YouTube and Yahoo compete. Live Mail is a Gmail and Yahoo Mail compete. Live Maps competes with Google Maps and MapQuest (AOL). And, there's the all-way IM battle between AOL, Yahoo, MSN/Live, and Google Talk. Honestly, there's a lot more than just these, but I'll leave it at that. This should be good enough of a list. With all this, I think a Yahoo merger would be beneficial because it would increase Microsoft's userbase, but I don't think it would happen. Microsoft typically acquires innovative start-ups, not web giants. Instead of a merger, I'd expect stronger co-opetition. Expect to see Live and Yahoo services working better together, like the IM coop that started this year. Beyond this, I don't expect much. I'd even go out on a limb to say this will definitely not happen. In the same breath, if Google goes for AOL, which would be the smartest move of 2007, in my opinion, Microsoft will have to do something to solidify its desktop. Having such a strong competitor who's already taking pot-shots from the web on the desktop is not going to be good for the bottom line.

If it isn't obvious, I'm very interested in this AOL issue. The only thing I could say about it would be that Microsoft might want to go for a buyout as somewhat of a preemptive strike before Google can. At the same time, I think AOL would deny that based on principle. As a company, I think AOL would rather go to Google. Man, the more I say it, the more I can see Google-AOL... this may be one exciting year!

The Next Windows

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 19:42:00 GMT

I started this post a while ago, but have been procrastinating on finishing it. First off, let me say that this isn't anything I've heard from anyone official. I'm merely commenting on my own thoughts. While I haven't seen or heard anyone else talk about this, I'm sure others have come to similar conclusions. I'd definitely be interested in others' thoughts on the subject. Anyway, on with the topic...

Over the years, there's been a lot of talk about old problems still remnant in Windows due to backwards compatibility and the possibility of Windows Vista being the last version in its current state. In a talk around 64-bit Windows, I made a connection between these two ideas. I believe this is already public knowledge, but the next version of Windows Server, codename "Longhorn," is planned to have a 64-bit only version. I don't remember all the technical details to that version, but this is definitely the direction we're moving, as an industry. With that, this might be a good point to cut over to a new, top-to-bottom rewrite of Windows. Taking a second or two to think about it, I can see the current line continually upgraded in an attempt to create a closer migration path between the two versions. Honestly, I can't see an easy transition between two incompatible versions of the OS. I think Microsoft would have to give a much more extended support plan to cover users who aren't willing to cut their existing resources loose so easily.

There's a lot that can be said about this, but I'll leave it at that, for now. I'm definitely interested in what comes out of Microsoft in the coming months. I expect to hear something by mid-year; probably not a lot, but at least a taste with some abstract time tables.

The Potential of Control Adapters

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:47:00 GMT

I read an article, Extreme ASP.NET , in the October edition of MSDN magazine that talked about control adapters, a new feature in .NET 2.0. I've heard of control adapters and I knew about the browser capabilities, but I never put the two together like this. Actually, I have to admit that I didn't know much at all about the way the stuff worked, I just knew vague tidbits about them. After reading this article, tho, I'm amped! I can't wait to dig into control adapters!

I'm a big (read: very big) fan of applying standards to your development work. Because of this, I try to use XHTML and CSS wherever possible. The problem is that most developers in the .NET world don't care. Rightfully so, developers are more interested in getting features implemented. I completely understand that and can't argue it -- heck, that's what we get paid to do. But, I can't help but get aggravated when I open a .NET project in Firefox, for instance, and it goes haywire. This is probably more common than you think, too. I admit that IE does add some great features; however, standardization shouldn't be an optional thing. If Microsoft believes so heavily in the added features, then push for them in the W3C. Actually, I can't say too many bad things about Microsoft's lack of applying standards because there has been a huge improvement over the last year or two. I am proud to say that, as a company, we are making great strides in the right direction. Believe it or not, everything's not all about the money... but it does put food on our tables. Anyway, back to control adapters...

One great control adapter implementation is the CSS Control Adapters , which was recently released. In a nutshell, control adapters allow you to give a control a completely new look and feel. This set of control adapters resolves non-standard coding practices built into the existing set of ASP.NET controls by providing a standards-based implementation. I love it! I still need to play with it, but I'm merely excited to have the capability.

Licensing the Office Look and Feel

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 12:53:00 GMT

I can't say I'm surprised there have been complaints about Microsoft's efforts to license the new Office look and feel . Some think this will stifle their creativity and limit their ability to control the user interface, but I think that's rubbish. This is the same argument people use against software patents. I honestly don't blame Microsoft for being proactive in licensing their UI. This is the first time they've tried to take control of their intelectual property from a design stand-point and it's well-deserved. If you've seen or played with the UI in Office 2007, love it or hate it, it's revolutionary. The reason for the strict control is to ensure there will be a consistent user experience from one app to the next, not to control what you develop. They put a lot of effort into this layout and it shows. Let's face it; we all try to mimic Office when we create applications. We want to use the same look and feel to ensure users can jump-in without training. It's just a smart move. All Microsoft is doing is trying to make it easier for you by documenting what they've done. The other side of the equation -- the limitations they put on usage and implementation -- are to protect end users. Think about it: When you see an app that tries to mimic a specific look and feel, but doesn't do it correctly, it's aggravating because you make assumptions that it'll work one way, but it doesn't. Then, you have to figure out how it does work, which can take a while, depending on how complex the change. This is just aggravating because it can be a huge productivity drain.

For anyone interested, there's a video on Channel9 discussing the UI licensing. I suggest you check it out to get a little more insight in its intentions.

One last thing I have to say... The amount of effort Microsoft put into this new look and feel is one in the face to those who say Microsoft doesn't innovate. Just my opinion, but it had to be said.

Google's Dirty Tactics

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:06:00 GMT

One of the things that has been said a lot regarding Google, is the company is just like a young Microsoft. This is fairly obvious when you look at how the company does business and the directions it moves in. This is why I wasn't surprised after I read a recent weblog post discussing how Google is stifling competitors search results. Anyone who's been around a while can probably see a relation to tactics Microsoft has taken in the past. At the same time, I have to admit that part of me wants to accept this. For instance, when Google Maps first came out, if I did a search for "maps", Google's own service didn't come up. That was astounding to me. Of course, this changed over time, but I've come to expect that a companies services come first. Maybe that's just me. As a potential advertiser, tho, I definitely see a problem. Unfortunately, I don't know what the answer is. I guess the precedant will be set by those willing (or not willing) to pay for Google's ad services. In the meantime, Google is seemingly ignoring history and determined to repeat it. Perhaps they have a trick up their sleeve, but for now, their only defense seems to be the fact that they're looked at in a positive light... for the time being, that is.

Dell Expanding Services Offerings

Michael Flanakin — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:54:00 GMT

Any Dell shareholders out there might be interested in the recent acquisition of ACS , an IT services firm. The move will expand Dell's service offerings and possibly make the company more of an enterprise player when it comes to end-to-end solutions. I can see a move like this changing the corporate buys by offering enticing services packages along with their servers. Given the right deals, Dell has a good chance and making some shareholders pretty happy over the next year as ACS gets settled in. I'm sure Dell is hoping enterprise buyers will look at this as, "Who knows how to better service my Dell servers than Dell?" After all, that outlook is why IBM, Sun, and Microsoft have such lucrative consulting offerings.

Lundquists' 2007 Tech To Do's

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:01:00 GMT

Eric Lundquist talks about 5 things you should be thinking about for your technology road map in 2007: open-source/Microsoft, mobility, simplicity, people, and customers. I wanted to comment on a few of them.

The first thing Eric touches on is the somewhat controversial deal between Microsoft and Novell to share patented information/technology. I have to say that Microsoft is not necessarily the wolf in sheep's clothing that most seem to think it is. Don't get me wrong, Microsoft -- as well as Novell -- is in this game to make money. My unofficial view of the deal is that Microsoft honestly wants better interoperability between the two operating systems. Novell just got lucky it was with them, in a sense. I don't expect Microsoft to ease up on any Linux vendor, tho. If anything, this will position them better to replace Linux. Microsoft has long had the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" strategy, tho. I believe this is exactly why this deal happened. Not that I'm saying one or the other can "win;" I honestly don't think it's a fight anyone can "win." They both exist and for different reasons. Sure, you can do what you need in both, but that doesn't mean everyone can live in one world or the other. That's why there are so many choices in every realm of technology -- beneath the covers, it's all the same game.

Next, Eric brings up the fact that we need to be looking at mobility. Mobility is something I feel very strongly about . I started a post a few months back ~~that I haven't posted yet~~ that touches on this very topic. This is almost a spark to get me to finish and post it.

Simplicity is always important. The one thing that has been fairly constant over the years is we continually increase simplicity. Granted, complexity is probably growing at double the simplicity rate, but at least there's somewhat of a balance. Software as a service (SAAS) is definitely a step in the right direction, but we can (and will) go so much further. I remember seeing something about hardware as a service being a possibility. I'd have to say that's been happening for years, but it isn't really a mainstream thing, so it defintely has room to grow, as well. There's something beyond that, tho. All of the big technology shifts we've had in the past 10 years have all been relatively known concepts that simply get applied on a macro scale. The question is, what's next? We're always looking to make life easier, so the next 5 years will most likely prove to be more interesting than the last 10. Honestly, Vista is one big step in that direction. The simplicity I've found in Vista is outstanding. (This wasn't intended to be a shameless plug, it's just how I feel.)

The last two items Eric mentions, thinking about people and customers, really resonates Microsoft's new people-ready campaign . Beyond that, I'd have to say that the mobility and simplicity points both have their own less obvious people-ready aspects, as well. Honestly, there are a lot of facets of being people-ready, but I think Microsoft hit the nail on the head when they coined this phrase. We've known it for years, but with the triple launch of Vista , Office , and Exchange , Microsoft really wanted to bring it home. It seems like Eric would have to agree.

Microsoft May Become a Chip Maker

Michael Flanakin — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:43:00 GMT

Here's an interesting tidbit . I guess Microsoft is looking to get into the chip-making business for the Xbox. I have to admit that I don't think it's a smart idea. I can understand why Microsoft is thinking about it -- by controlling the core hardware Xbox will depend on, Microsoft will be able to focus the future of the product-line in whatever direction it sees fit. For anyone who sees this as an old school Microsoft move to use it's wide software usage to drive into hardware, I don't think you have anything to worry about. When it comes to creating the next generation gaming experience, Microsoft will need to play all the cards it can, which includes the hardware it's built on. Of course, this is assuming Microsoft can pull it off. Don't get me wrong, if anyone is capable of doing it, Microsoft is. We have some brilliant people here. My real concern is that, as a company, we haven't done the best job in the hardware arena. I admit that I don't know a lot about the financials; however, if my intel is correct, the Xbox has been a loss since it started. Granted, this has nothing to do with the product's consumer value. Xbox is and will remain to be a major contender in the gaming market. Microsoft's position is that it would rather be competing in the market and be losing than not competing at all. Besides, Microsoft has a lot of staying power, which is why it's become such a good competitor in so many areas. We'll have to see how it turns out; but I don't think we'll really hear anything for sure for another few years.

Vista Security Affects Microsoft Products, Too

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:29:00 GMT

I hate chiming in on topics that have already run rampant throughout the dev blogosphere, but I feel like I need to because people are being so negative about the lack of support for Visual Studio (VS) on Vista.

First, let me explain the situation for those that don't know. Apparently, Microsoft's past 3 development environments are being considered "incompatible" with Windows Vista. That's a pretty simplistic answer, which is exactly why there's been so much hubub in the dev community. Obviously, developers are among the top Vista pre-release users, so this would obviously be a concern. The problem is, people aren't seeing the big picture, what the real problem is, and what this really means.

The real problem lies within the fact that some of the advanced features, like advanced debugging, are the ones that are causing the problems. These problems are directly related to the new security features in Vista, which change the way memory is managed, for instance. Just like I said when Symantec was griping about Vista's security features locking out competitors , the very same features are also causing compatibility issues with Microsoft's own software. I knew this would come up eventually, it was just a matter of what product and when. Hopefully, this will help arm the battle against those who would rather loosen security to fatten wallets .

Since I've been on Vista, I've done all my dev work in Virtual PC, so this hasn't affected me. Although, given the features that are problematic, I don't think it would affect me that much. There are plans for a service pack of some sort (after VS 2005 SP1) that will be specific to Vista and hopefully fix all of the issues there are with VS -- at least, the latest release. There are no plans to update VS 2003 -- as there shouldn't be, in my opinion.

One thing that everyone needs to realize is that Vista and Visual Studio are two very big products. If Microsoft is going to commit to supporting different release combinations, they have to be able to do so 100%. There is a ton of money that goes into supporting these products and it just doesn't make sense from a financial standpoint to support something that you know will be problematic. There's a work-around and it's actually a nice one, in my opinion. Only the official release will truly show us how this will affect everyone on the larger scale, tho.

Here We Go Again: EU vs Vista

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:01:00 GMT

Now Adobe is joining the EU fight against Microsoft for the deployment of Vista. Adobe, along with Symantec, is attempting to coerce the European Union (EU) into not allowing Vista to ship. Both have two separate reasons. While Symantec's argument is old news, Adobe is new to the argument.

Apparently, Adobe is worried about maintaining its PDF marketshare. I'm not sure what side Adobe is arguing, tho. It looks like the argument could be that Vista is supposed to have PDF reading and writing software; but unless that is new to post-RC1 builds, this is wrong. Whether or not the PDF reading/writing argument is there, I do know Adobe has an issue with the included support for XPS documents. XPS is an "open" format that separates content from formatting. If you're curious about it, get a hold of one and rename it to .zip. This is what I mean by "open." I'm not sure if there is a published standard for it or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if one does come out. Back to the Adobe argument, tho, I honestly don't think there's an XPS document writer built into Vista, either. There is a reader, tho: IE7. I think this is ingenious; especially, when you compare it to Acrobat Reader, one of the slowest loading pieces of cra... I mean, software on my machine. And, given that all it does is display documents, that just makes it worse. Anyway, I can understand Adobe's argument about its inclusion, but they're picking the wrong fight. With no capability in Vista to write either document format, half the argument is bogus. Office does have this capability, but as far as I've seen, Vista doesn't. Adobe seems to be confusing the two. And, as far as reading the formats is concerned, the XPS reader will be available in any OS that supports IE7 -- I don't know if it'll be back-ported to IE6 or not. So, this means the issue isn't in Vista alone, but the IE bits of XP, Vista, and any other IE7-supported version of Windows. Thus rebutting Adobe's argument against Vista. Sure, they may have a valid argument, but not in the arena they're raising the issue. They're grasping for straws, just like Symantec.

Now, back to Symantec. I touched on this before and nothing's changed. I do have to point out one quote from Symantec, tho. Apparently, Cris Paden, of Symantec voices the companies opinion that Microsoft's change in the underlying operating system is to prevent security software companies from protecting systems against security threats. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. The reason Vista's underbelly has changed is to stop hackers. Perhaps Paden is saying that Symantec is synonymous with hacker. Hmm... If that's the case, Paden is right.

EU Ignorance Supports Hackers, Malware

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:42:00 GMT

I know the EU has its heart in the right place, but its ignorance may end up forcing Microsoft to remove security features (1, 2), which would in-turn support hackers, malware providers, and the like. The argument is that Microsoft isn’t playing fair by disallowing access to low-level capabilities, which are accessible in current versions. The thought is that Microsoft can use these features, but vendors can’t. This is a misconception. Windows may be able to use these features, but don’t expect other Microsoft products to be able to access them (i.e. Office). Microsoft apps live by the same rules as vendor apps. So the anti-competitive claim is absolutely bogus. The EU seems like a schoolyard bully -- if you pay, they’ll keep coming back for more. I honestly think someone on the board has stock in Microsoft competitors and is simply trying to make their stock go down as much as possible. Is there a such thing as anti-stock? If not, I’m sure the EU will be the first to come up with it -- or fine Microsoft for not having it.

Ultimately, if this does go thru, I think Microsoft will simply have a less secure version of Windows Vista to comply with the regulation. At least that's what happened last time when there was an issue with bundling Windows Media Player (Windows XP N was born). So, keep your eyes out for Windows Vista EU (Extra Unsecure) Honestly, Microsoft won't release anything it considers unsecure -- yeah, yeah, you may be laughing, but Microsoft puts a great deal of effort into making apps secure. I could see there being options to turn off some features, while others will be required. Beyond that, there are some things that can't be options because they are core to the system. To get around it, Microsoft may have to create a few API calls to tunnel thru the security. This would have to have minimal distribution and would have to be protected quite heavily. If in use, it would definitely open up the system to being compromised. All we can do is hope that the EU doesn't make such a moronic move. Personally, knowing the difference, I'd rather purchase the more secure version. I can't see the EU banning the use of one version and not another, but you never know.

Google's Lock-in Mousetrap

Michael Flanakin — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 07:57:00 GMT

I'm not even going to get into the specifics of this post on Google's lock-in mousetrap. Let me say that I completely understand the war tactics that Microsoft took in the past and that Google's taking now. Only the strong survive, right? Well, there's a completely different strategy between the two companies right now and one thing's changed in the world since the days when Microsoft was playing these games: Microsoft. A lot of things were learned by companies as they watched Microsoft make business decisions that may not have been completely ethical, but earned them a place in every home. Good, bad, or indifferent, it's in the past. Google's trying to take that same approach now, but a lot of things have changed, so I don't think it'll work as well. Sure, Google has a very strong backing, but it won't go down the same way. I see Google being a strong competitor in the next few years, but it seems like more of a 5 year plan, whereas Microsoft has a 20 year plan. I can't and won't speak for either company, tho; I'm simply stating my opinions based on what I've seen and continue to see going on for both companies. It'll be interesting to see how things pan out, but unless Google gets out of their unspoken lock-in target, they won't last.

Patent for Self-Regulating Social Networks

Michael Flanakin — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 02:47:00 GMT

Well, a busy day at Slashdot means longer time posting a few comments and opinions for me. This will be one of 7 posts touching on different Slashdot posts. This is the most I've seen on Slashdot that I've actually felt the need to comment on in a while. Here goes...

First up to bat is yet another gripe about Microsoft and patents. I have to say that I'm getting very annoyed with the patent issue. This patent covers a method for the self-regulating social networks (i.e. MySpace and YouTube). The post was pretty negative, but I honestly don't see any harm in the patent. If you don't like it, don't use any system that utilizes it. Plain and simple. I'm not going to get into the patent issue, yet, there's more to come. All I really have to say is that, with all the time wasted to spam and the like, I see this as a good thing. Honestly, if I could track down who sent me an unsolicited email and reduce their bandwidth, I would. Wouldn't you?

Microsoft and Google Stocks

Michael Flanakin — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 17:10:00 GMT

Well, I just had to let everyone know how much of an effect I have on IT economics... Since I started with Microsoft in early July, Microsoft has been on an up-turn and Google has been dropping. Coincidence? I think not!

Watch, now that I've said that and jinxed Microsoft, they'll both pull a 180

Thoughts on Balmer's Promise

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 11:10:00 GMT

While catching up on some old weblog posts, something triggered a thought. As I mentioned before, Balmer promised to keep product groups pumping out releases. Specifically, he said there would be no more 5 year gaps between releases. There wasn't much said beyond that, so what will really change is still up in the air. My guess is that we'll get more info on this a few months after the Vista release or, worse yet, after the Longhorn release. To get to the point, my worry is that all these CTPs and betas are going to be included in that promise. If they are, not much will change from today. Granted, a lot of things have changed over the years, so it's better, but my hope is that we'd see official major version releases every year or two. Two years is more likely, but every year would be nice; especially when you consider the move to service-based licensing. My biggest fear is that there might be a staggered approach to releases. Microsoft has a lot of products to release. There could be product releases every 3-6 months for different products to make it seem like they're very busy, but that could still keep them at 3 year individual product cycles. Not quite ideal, but it would seemingly bring the gap between releases down. The only thing about that approach that doesn't directly match what they've been doing in the past, which is try to release products in groups (i.e. Windows Vista and Office 2007, VS 2005 and SQL Server 2005). I guess we'll see what happens within the next year. Vista should be in stores in January, so hopefully we'll see something a little more firm come out after that.