Impaled on the Longhorns of a Dilemma
|
With Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) done, it was high time for the Windows team to make a choice. It could push the delivery date out (yet again) so as to incorporate all the new features it has been promising for the past few years. Or it could scale back the feature list and just ship the darned thing before too much more time elapses. It looks like Microsoft has decided to cut Longhorn features and cut its losses. I think the Redmondians made the right decision. Read About Microsoft's Plan to Gut Longhorn Here It's hard to admit to over-promising in the hopes of over-delivering (though Microsoft should be pretty good at that by now). But it's worse to let your developers get deep into coding for a new product and then pull the rug out from under them. Microsoft has yet to ship the first official alpha release of Longhorn client; the various Longhorn builds circulating out there are pre-alphas. The first true alpha was supposed to go out this fall. So even though Microsoft has been encouraging developers to start coding for Longhorn now, it's doubtful that many have made too much headway. But there are other reasons I think Microsoft made the right — and, really, the only — choice that it could have at this point.
Microsoft hasn't shipped a full Windows client refresh since 2001, when it delivered Windows XP. Windows XP SP2, as Microsoft has said repeatedly, is not a new version of Windows (despite all appearances to the contrary). If Longhorn slipped much past 2006, we'd be closing in on a decade between new Windows releases. That wouldn't sit too well with PC makers who love having a new operating system around which to market their machines. Nor would it make many Microsoft customers happy - especially those who have opted to license Windows under Microsoft's Software Assurance licensing scheme. They are expecting some kind of a Windows update within the three years that are covered by the plan. By delaying Longhorn beyond 2006, Microsoft also would be exposing itself to potential defections. To date, there've been relatively few companies that have gone public with massive defections from Windows desktops to Mac or Linux desktops. (Servers is another story, as we know.) But if Longhorn got pushed out until 2009/2010 (the current "Blackcomb" timeframe), there could be more of an opportunity for disgruntled customers to think about switching, rather than fighting to stick with Windows. Microsoft is attempting to put a good face on its latest Longhorn news by emphasizing the fact that it will make some Longhorn technologies, such as the Avalon presentation and Indigo communications subsystems available on existing versions of Windows. And And it's true the company isn't killing completely the WinFS storage subsystem, though it is not going to be able to make it the crux of Longhorn, as Bill "Information at Your Fingertips" Gates has been promising for a few years now. What could Microsoft have done differently? Opted to make Longhorn a smaller, more incremental release from the get-go? That would have definitely been more doable, but far less dramatic. Decided against sharing Longhorn details and code so early in the development process? Not a great option, especially for developers who want to get as early a heads-up as possible on what's next for Windows. My favored option: Come out with an interim Windows release between Windows XP and Longhorn ("Shorthorn," anyone?) Microsoft contemplated that one for a while, but officially nixed the interim release (most recently known by the code-name "Oasis") earlier this year. What's your take? Did Microsoft make the right choice by axing some key Longhorn features in order to get it out the door? What do you think Microsoft should do differently in the future to avoid this kind of situation? Talk back below. Or write me at mswatch@ziffdavis.com and |
Comments (8)
If your favored opinion is to come out with an interim Windows release between Windows XP and Longhorn ("Shorthorn," anyone?)
My opinion is that it sounds like the opening for Microsoft to release another Windows ME.
ANYTHING but that!
(Unless you think Windows ME was a great move.)
I don't know anyone who works with computers who likes ME.
Just my opinion.
Posted by Ronald Reed | August 27, 2004 3:12 PM
Windows ME was/is an unneeded step between Windows 98se and Windows 2000/XP. Microsoft had to get off the Win9x platform, but ME was just plain s-l-o-w.
Posted by Craig Matthews | August 27, 2004 3:32 PM
With the resources available to MS (they could hire just about anyone not morally opposed to working for them), I just don't understand why, given the time they've been working on it, they can't write a new file system. I don't care how complex it is, it is still basically a file system.
Moreover, since winfs is basically a searchable database, you'd think that they'd already have a pretty substantial start with Yukon.
Posted by Nick Aghazarian | August 29, 2004 1:13 AM
I suggest that we get beyond the issue of whether Microsoft did the right thing in announcing the delivery of a scaled-back version of Longhorn. I'm wondering how long it takes Microsoft to learn software engineering principles. This is a botched job - clear and simple - with potentially serious consequences to the software development community. Microsoft is no longer a start-up company and should start acting like what it is ... the largest software development organization in the world. Because of it's dominant place in the software world, Microsoft has responsibilities - that they consistently fail to understand or meet. The software development and user communities depend on what Microsoft delivers. Unfortunately, it seems that the market-driven management of Microsoft fails to understand the crucial importance of when and what they deliver. There are consequences to us all. Does anyone think that Microsoft understands this? I for one do not. I think it's time that Microsoft grows up, and takes responsibility. That is it's role as the leader in this industry.
Posted by Gary Dorst | September 3, 2004 3:33 PM
Personally, given the way M$ has been performing the past 2 years, I look for them to go the way of Digital Corp. Yes, they have major $$$ resources to throw at defeating their competition, but they'll never rival the sheer number of active developers in the Open Source community. They simply can't spread themselves as widely as GNU project teams can, and they can't react as quickly and efficiently as a cell-based project can. Proprietary technology works as long as it is the majority...M$ is slowly losing it's majority in the market, and people will begin to find it more frustrating than innovative. Just take a look at the browser wars for an example of how it almost destroyed both products involved! Grid computing works, and now we're beginning to see the advantages of "Grid Programming"...Plus the Open Source price points don't hurt the movement at all...
Posted by Kermit Short | September 3, 2004 4:22 PM
Windows XP is a quite well working OS! Why should I install on my machine some kind of the interim release like OASIS? To be honest with you, I don't understand at this point, why do we need a new Windows release every 2 years, that doesn't offer new technology to us anyway? I would like to wait for the "complete" longhorn!
Posted by ChriSoft | September 8, 2004 6:20 AM
apart from the fact that i was lmao when i first heard the name LONGHORN who does William (Open The Flood) Gates of doom think he is. just as you get used to a certain platform, he goes into mental masturbation mode releasing all this crap to totally confuse people who just want their platform to work properly. geeeeeee, what a lot to ask for. Apple and Linux are looking better all the time and they don't need 3rd party software either. I own a DELL pc. brilliant computer, shame about XP. you see people. this is what happens when you become complacent. if Bill thinks his billions are gonna get his reputation out of THAT creek hes got another thing coming. Mary Jo Foley, you rock babe. Andrew from OZ (down under)
Posted by scratchback2002 | September 10, 2004 9:06 AM
Is there a clear need for a new full version of Windows? I disagree strongly with bringing out a new version simply because of some marketing timetable. On the other hand, acknowledging that XP has some problems and solving them in an interim release seems perfectly reasonable.
Since most of the security problems stem from Internet Explorer, then giving the user the ability to use a smaller and more secure windows shell should be one of the improvements.
It is true that many of the software giants of old lost out because they did not come out with new versions when they should have, but that is because they did not make improvements that users wanted in a timely manner.
Posted by John Sheffield | November 15, 2004 9:32 PM