Are These Windows Transparent or Translucent?
|
News Analysis. Could Microsoft possibly say less about Vista successor Windows 7? |
Steven Sinofsky's motto should be, in the spirit of Memorial Day: "Loose lips sink ships." Office development proceeded with scant disclosure under his tenure. Little has changed since he assumed the role as Microsoft's senior veep for the Windows and Windows Live Engineering group. Open disclosure and dialogue punctuated past Windows development—not that the process did much for Vista.
Now Steven is talking Windows 7 to CNET News.com. But he's not saying much. There's even a Microsoft "Communicating Windows 7" blog post, credited to Chris Flores, defending the say-no-more interview.
Microsoft seemingly has plenty of reasons to keep mum about Seven, starting with freezing Vista sales. The company claims 140 million Vista licenses shipped. But that number is deceptive. Based on interviews with analysts and enterprise IT managers, the majority of licenses are on new PCs where Vista is never deployed. Most businesses are stripping off Vista and using downgrade rights to install Windows XP.
By that measure, Vista is a disaster. It's the Titanic hitting the only iceberg within 1,000 kilometers and sinking in five minutes. Windows customers waited three to nearly six years for Vista (depending on when they deployed XP). There should have been a wild rush for Vista. But the Vista, ah, view was more stinking landfill than garden. People are selling their Vista homes and moving back to the XP neighborhood. Yeah, yeah, I mixed metaphors.
With real world Vista deployments so bad, Microsoft shouldn't want to make adoption matters worse. Big talk about Seven could easily solidify IT organizational determination to skip Vista and wait for Seven. Microsoft knows there really shouldn't be any talk about Vista's successor. Yet Steven gave that interview where he didn't say much.
But he talked lots, which is the point. That he said so little may be more about his personality and the interview style of reporter Ina Fried. CBS just bought CNET. Windows 7 maybe isn't the stuff of "60 Minutes," but surely somebody at the network knows something about interviewing tight-lipped personalities.
Perhaps Steven needed a platform for explaining why there is so little information disclosure about Windows 7—why things have changed.
Chris offered some explanation about why things have changed in his credited blog post:
"Typically when Microsoft ships a new OS (like Windows Vista), we immediately start talking about the next version. ...What is a little different today is when and how we are talking about the next version of Windows. So, why the change in approach? We know that when we talk about our plans for the next release of Windows, people take action. As a result, we can significantly impact our partners and our customers if we broadly share information that later changes. With Windows 7, we're trying to more carefully plan how we share information with our customers and partners."
What Chris really means—and what Steven essentially says in his CNET News.com Q&A—Microsoft wants to take greater control regarding the information disclosed about Windows development. Microsoft will say what it wants when ready. Not any sooner. So why are Steven and Chris revealing tidbits today? I see two reasons: myth busting and getting out some positive information about Windows (e.g., not talking about Vista).
Because Microsoft has been so mum about Windows 7, rumor mongers have set the agenda. Meanwhile, Vista has caught a kind of virtual leprosy; the operating system is shunned, and it's the object of ridicule. Microsoft simply can't let either circumstance continue. So today the company started a coordinated effort to take control of the messaging.
The big myth-busting information is a real shocker: Windows 7 plumbing won't be all that different from Vista. Chris' credited blog post explains:
"The long-term architectural investments we introduced in Windows Vista and then refined for Windows Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008 will carry forward in Windows 7. Windows Vista established a very solid foundation, particularly on subsystems such as graphics, audio, and storage. Windows Server 2008 was built on that foundation and Windows 7 will be as well. Contrary to some speculation, Microsoft is not creating a new kernel for Windows 7."
Well, son of a bitch. There's no new kernel? Seven builds on Vista's "solid foundation"? Same `ol, same `ol isn't what Microsoft customers and partners need from Seven. They need a different and—please—not a pretty new user interface. The approach is great for backward compatibility, particularly hardware drivers, but not much for advancing Windows where it needs to go.
Something else is holding Seven back. From Chris' credited blog: "One of our design goals for Windows 7 is that it will run on the recommended hardware we specified for Windows Vista."
In March, I strongly advocated that Microsoft start afresh with a new kernel and build up a modular operating system that could run on many devices. Clearly, Microsoft is taking no risks, which is the riskiest approach possible. Same kernel and same hardware requirements won't get Windows onto the plethora of devices it needs to be on. Vista requirements are too high and best suited for PCs.
Besides myth busting, there is Microsoft's desperate need to get out something positive about Windows. That's not easy with all the negative Web chatter about Vista and the constant nitpicking of Apple's "Get a Mac" TV commercials. Silence is golden only when there is no other noise. Given how bad the Vista talk is, perhaps Microsoft executives think that they can get away with talking Seven without causing too much sales harm to the current operating system.
That said, including today's reaffirmation of a ship date—"approximately three years after the general availability of Windows Vista," according to Chris' credited blog—any information risks freezing sales. I see extremes rather than middle ground. Either Microsoft executives see that even limited information disclosure can do little more harm, or they don't care—meaning they've already given up on Windows Vista.
If the latter explanation, isn't that delusional thinking, assuming Seven plumbing will be no better than Vista's?
Related Posts:
- Vista's Bad Rap and the Adoption Gap, Microsoft Watch, April 16, 2008
- Broken Windows Can't Be Fixed, Microsoft Watch, April 11, 2008
- 10 Ways Microsoft Can Make Windows 7 Lucky, Microsoft Watch, March 21, 2008
- Windows Seven: We're Hiring!, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 31, 2008
- Windows Seven: Enough Already, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 25, 2008
- Is Seven Renegade, Guerrilla Marketer or Fake?, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 13, 2008
- Why 'Seven' and Not SP1?, Microsoft Watch, July 24, 2007
Comments (19)
Please stop this awful use of first names. It's freaking distracting and goes against every agreed upon journalism style in existence.
Posted by Steve Bill | May 27, 2008 3:21 PM
Looks like Windows 7 = Vista Beta (n + 1) where n = the last beta version number for Vista.
Same OS with maybe a few bits tacked onto it.
Not looking good. If MS keeps that up the whole company will freeze over.
Posted by Bernie | May 27, 2008 3:38 PM
An article that tells us nothing but does bash MS throughout.
Probably the worst bias crap Joe has ever written.
Please someone tell me one thing in here that isn't in the title. Did you need to write an entire Microbashing article to say that one thing or have you been too objective lately and you couldn't help yourself?
Posted by BlahBlah | May 27, 2008 3:56 PM
Joe, sometimes I think there is a bottle of whiskey sitting beside your monitor. Because you utter so much garbage its unbelievable. You speak with such lack of understanding it shows throughout your entire writing when it comes to talking technology.
First of all, Windows Vista is not a failure, next 140 million licenses sold is not a failure its actually astounding. Next, how do you know that the majority of those licenses have not actually been deployed? Did you check every business in America and around the world to come to that foolish conclusion?
Building Windows 7 on the solid foundation of Windows Server 2008 SP1 means reassurance to customers who have invested heavily in Windows Vista can have the confidence to deploy their existing infrastructure on Windows 7 when its released. This means existing hardware and applications will work on Windows 7 without any alteration. Windows 7 will use the same driver framework as Windows Vista. How in heavens name is this wrong or risky????
Building a new kernel from scratch is the stupidest idea I have ever heard from you? What solution will this offer Windows developers and customers? Re-engineer applications for a new platform that will take years, incompatibility with existing investments in hardware and software? Just because you think the idea of a modular Windows client is better? Windows is already modular in a significant way, the different Windows Vista SKU's offer customers the choice they need and the features they want. How is Windows Server 2008's roles based approach going to be relevant to a client OS? Come on, think before you speak.
You say that Windows Vista is causing certain customers to downgrade to Windows XP? What is the catalyst for this? The only one I can think of is compatibility, yet you say that they need a brand new kernel to fix Windows. You talk ridiculous crap without reading it, it seems. As Steve clearly noted in the interview, Windows 7 will bring compatibility forward. The evolution of Windows 7's kernel will insure that.
Quote:
But we're actually going to bring forward the compatibility, and we're going to make sure that there's a lot of value for everybody who's a customer of Windows 7. - Steven Sinofsky
The silence on Windows 7 is important, its the right approach and other company's are doing it, look at Adobe with the next release of Creative Suite, they are releasing information in a timely relevant manner.
Other reasons to consider, over discuss Windows 7 now what does this say about Vista, that Microsoft has lost faith in the product and admitted defeat? Also, Windows Vista was just released world wide a year and a half, Windows 7 won’t be here until at least early 2010. Why would they want to jump the gun so early and start shooting themselves in the foot like they did with transparency of the Longhorn project?
Joe, this is the most disturbing, disappointing, pointless, hotheaded, sensationalist article I have read from you.
Posted by Andre Da Costa | May 27, 2008 4:08 PM
@ Joe,
See how stupid one becomes when trying to talk about common sense in technology? Microsoft will never admit they ever made a mistake. They will talk and obfuscate and distort and dodge until they've worn a track in the carpet and they will call that the path to enlightenment.
It's what Microsoft has been doing to you journalist types for years and you're just now learning you should have really been much more than just 'skeptical' of everything Microsoft personnel told you for more the past six years.
Congratulations. They now think of you the way they think of people like me. And you're not even half a digit into the reality of the matter.
Enjoy. They've only just begun to sling poo.
Posted by portuno | May 27, 2008 5:17 PM
@Andre and BlahBlah (quite an appropriate name, by the way)
If MSFT knew how to use bare metal virtualization, MSFT could build an operating system and "drivers" arbitrated for any system and any other platform. Then, MSFT wouldn't have to come up with so many excuses and alternate histories.
But, Microsoft can't do this in public, can they? No. They can't. They've talked and talked and talked but all talk and no do.
I have an idea: Let's all measure what they're able to produce instead of falling all over them when they promise. Perhaps measurement will clear some of the smoke pouring from the R&D labs.
Posted by portuno | May 27, 2008 5:30 PM
People are downgrading to XP not only because of the compatibility problems, but because Vista slower than XP. Doesn't anyone understand that customers want their computers to work? This is 2008 and long startup and shutdown times should not be tolerated by anyone with modern computers and "modern software".
I relative bought a laptop recently with Vista, slow as hell and that was with 1 GB Ram. I hacked it down to the point I deleted or disabled the following items.
System Restore
Superfetch
Aero
Sidebar
Windows Defender
Norton and Symantec replaced w/AVG
Deleted all no needed startup apps.
Why does ANYONE have to hack their new computers, install another OS, and/or add more ram to make it perform better?
140 Million Vista sold? You do know that site licensees have rights to other MSFT software other than Vista?
Does that 140 million include the mandate that MSFT makes Site licensees and OEM's buy Vista licenses in order to downgrade and install XP? Does that take in account the people who bought Vista machines and downgraded to XP?
How many of those "140 million" were returned to the retailer? Is it any wonder why MSFT is in trouble? Snake oil salesman skewing numbers to make something look like it is selling great when if one looks closer..it is anything but?
Want the real figures on Vista? Look to corporate IT and the deployment of Vista,...what is it 10 %...there is your answer on "how popular Vista is".
Corporate IT is MSFT's cash cow, we consumers are just cattle.
Is it any wonder why we have trouble believing anything coming out of Redmond these days? More importantly why should we continue to use their products now or in the future when there are other options now?
So Windows 7 is going to be based on Vista? Wonderful, so I guess the tiny laptop market will finally go back to all Linux like it should have, but MSFT got scared of the competition from Linux and saved XP Home for one reason only ..., to compete with a competitor who's software is free...
(This despite MSFT hell bent on eliminating XP altogether just months earlier)
....or will Windows XP Home be extended again until 2015 until the next Windows comes out? Or will MSFT hack the spit out of Vista/Windows 7 to make it fit on the OLPC?
(what no aero?...lmao)
Posted by Ralph | May 27, 2008 5:38 PM
Ha,ha,ha
Some Shills (BlahBlah and Andre)will be needing
urgent medical attention.
Posted by Marco | May 27, 2008 9:11 PM
Joe, I don't understand why you and many others insist that Windows needs a new kernel.
From all I've read (and i'm by no means an OS researcher or expert), the main issues in Windows are the many many layered user land subsystems and layercake'd APIs.
The only criticisms of the actual windows kernel that i'm aware of are:
.) The crappy WDM driver architecture with the UMDF/KMDF templates on top. (sorta kinda counts towards the kernel architecture, me thinks)
.) That context switching and starting processes is very expensive.
As a final $0.02; i think any kookie schemes of virtualization would be the worst possible way forward. Windows needs a diet, that means removing / retooling legacy things not adding another copy of windows on top with some virtualization glue inbetween. Plus that hypothetical "written from scratch" OS would be the buggiest Windows version ever - "from scratch" software rewrites always are...
Posted by whatever | May 27, 2008 11:22 PM
Vista and XP are part of the Windows NT line, masterminded by Dave Cutler, formerly of DEC where he oversaw the creation of VMS. And like VMS, it seems to have heavyweight processes, that are expensive to create and schedule.
Contrast this with the Unix tradition of cheap process creation and scheduling, core characteristics which are inherited by Linux.
Guess which is proving more capable for modern software needs on modern hardware?
Posted by Lawrence D'Oliveiro | May 28, 2008 2:53 AM
Hi Lawrence,
Out of curiosity - do you think this is something that can be improved with the existing kernel or something that demands a near complete reworking of how the kernel does it's thing?
Beyond the theory of it i really don't know enough, but would love to know what other's think...
Posted by whatever | May 28, 2008 4:17 AM
In order to take advantage of the new internet web environment it is time for Microsoft to build a new operating system. The customers should be able to switch back and forth with ease from Winweb to Windows XP or Vista as needed. When the environment and capability of computers change many times you need to abandon the past to take advantage of the newer capabilities. Just a suggestion
Posted by steve | May 28, 2008 10:16 AM
The current Vista kernel is somewhere around 200MB large.
If Microsoft were to do it right, there would be no need to switch between operating systems. The operating system would be transparent and the user would be able to work on the web, the desktop, other desktops, offline/online... whatever.
The fact Microsoft is trapped on the OS and can't gain traction off the desktop shows just how deep the moat around MSFT technology has been dug.
Modular operations mean multiple kernels each doing what each does best. 200MB kernels? Nope. Kernels in the micro-kernel size - each able to communicate with the local client resourses and with any web-based resources at the same time.
Why can't Microsoft do this with Vista?
Posted by portuno | May 28, 2008 12:36 PM
My laptop with XP broke down, i needed another one. Had to get a vista one. Hate it.
I dont know enuf about all this to try linux or downgrade to XP- is there a beginners place to start? How can I see what Linux looks like?
Any recommendations?
I barely stayed non-mac this time, and i am sorry now I didnt switch. This thing has nearly gone through the window many times, and I've only had it a couple months.X/
Posted by i hate myself for buying this | May 28, 2008 1:30 PM
breaking backwards compatibility for drivers was the worst part really (even worse than the DRM), as linux now has BETTER legacy driver support than windows. deary me
judging by the amount of "rubbishing" comments on every MS-critical article and the dire quality of recent software products released, i swear MS employees are being actively encouraged to spend most of their time astroturfing the blogs!
if you hold MS-stock, sell now!
Posted by astroturfers aside | May 28, 2008 4:23 PM
i hate myself for buying this: WROTE
My laptop with XP broke down, i needed another one. Had to get a vista one. Hate it.
I dont know enuf about all this to try linux or downgrade to XP- is there a beginners place to start? How can I see what Linux looks like?
Any recommendations?
---------------------------------------------------
Google "Ubuntu Forums" , go there and register and post. There will be someone there that will help. Linux advanced to the point that you can run it on your computer without installing it by using the Ubuntu Live CD.
If you like you can either install or dual boot later on. Start in the Beginner section and work your way from there. You will be surprised that Ubuntu/Linux takes much less RAM to run and do most modern apps with faster speed.
Posted by Ralph | May 28, 2008 6:21 PM
I don't think MS gets it. I don't think they think there is anything wrong with Vista... except bad p.r. Nothing a fresh new look and a snazzy new name won't fix... right? No, I am sure now... they don't get it at all.
So long as you don't have a bunch of windows specific applications that you can't replace... then there is no reason not to try Ubuntu. It loads as easy as XP, comes with an office suite built in and is completely free. Free as in you don't have to pay for it, or downloads for it, or a lot of applications that run on it all free. Free updates as well. No more spyware or virus concerns. Plus, if you try it and miss Vista... al least it didn't cost anything but some time.
Posted by Soap | May 29, 2008 12:16 AM
Kernel Schmernel! All this talk about an new kernel is a hoax perpetrated by Mary Jo Foley to get clicks so she could sell her new book.
She saw a video of a Microsoft engineer discussing MinWin, a stripped down OS for embedded systems. She fanticized and speculated and fanticized some more until she convinced her followers that Windows 7 needed a new kernel.
Posted by roger | May 29, 2008 8:53 AM
This has happened with every major change in Windows (95 and XP). It has lots of problems, and current platforms in the field cannot quite support it. The next version will be a cleanup, hardware will advance, enough people will have bought new platforms that it will be OK. A couple years after that it will be solid and people will be happy. They don't know any better. Its all about PR.
As for Linux, it is no panacea, but things that are broken either you can fix or they get fixed. Of course everyone is not into fixing things or does not have the background, and so would be helpless, but with Windows is it really any better? You have someone to curse at, but it does not change the bottom line. The bottom line is that things are fixed faster with Linux, 6 to 18 mo depending on severity. There is nothing you can do. I update my Linux every 12-18 months, and each is substantially, no delightfully better than the one before. Can anyone way that about Windows? Are there problems with Linux? Yes, just different ones. As for applications, Open Office has much better functionality than MS Office, but the word processor (writer) has a few clumbsy points making it tedious to use. MS-Word is a very well thought-out application, being designed at Xerox as BravoX on the Alto. MS-Word 1.0 was virtually identical, except being mapped to a character oriented display. Since then it has accumulated 25 years of bells, whistles, and baggage that nobody needs. I don't understand why the OpenOffice / Staroffice people don't make it easier to use. However I would also note that my children don't want to use MS-Word - they have always used OO Writer and are happy.
Posted by Ray | May 29, 2008 1:22 PM